Re: [Zope] 'websafe' colours
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000, Stephan Goeldi wrote: > > > > According to a recent study, there are approximately 13 'web safe' > > > > colours, out of the full 16,777,216. > > > > > > What makes the other 15,777,203 'unsafe'? > > If you mean the 'browsersafe colours' then there are 218. > Yes, my mistake. I did mean 'browser safe'. I was aware of the previous belief of 216 (mostly because of 256 colour modes less 40 system colours), but as I stated, a recent study has "dispelled the myth", claiming (and now I correct myself :) only 22 browser safe colours. http://slashdot.org/articles/00/09/08/1622204.shtml has some more details, and a link to the actual article. > >The only other possible reason I can recall is that some of the 'named' > >colours are not supported by all browsers, or are not interpreted the > > same. > > No, the problem is, that they are not displayed the same. > Not long after posting my message I realised this also. (o8 > -goe- > Have a better one, Curtis Maloney ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] 'websafe' colours
[Curtis Maloney] | As I understand it, it's due to system palettes. On low colour | machines (256 or even 16colour) some colours are reserved for the | system GUI so that you can match the 'theme', leaving you with fewer | than the full capacity of the display you are using. Actually the problem with many colours is that there is slight difference between how they are shown in for example BGCOLOR and in a gif. There was an article about this in the online version of Wired. -Magnus ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
Re: [Zope] 'websafe' colours
On Mon, 02 Oct 2000, Chris Withers wrote: > Curtis Maloney wrote: > > According to a recent study, there are approximately 13 'web safe' > > colours, out of the full 16,777,216. Can you be bothered restricting > > yourself to support the 'lowest common denominator' ? > > What makes the other 15,777,203 'unsafe'? > As I understand it, it's due to system palettes. On low colour machines (256 or even 16colour) some colours are reserved for the system GUI so that you can match the 'theme', leaving you with fewer than the full capacity of the display you are using. Admittedly, since most people these days are running 15bit or higher colour depths, and non-paletted video modes, for the majority of users this isn't a problem. (Thus my 'lowest common denominator' comment.) The only other possible reason I can recall is that some of the 'named' colours are not supported by all browsers, or are not interpreted the same. > cheers, > > Chris Have a better one, Curtis ___ Zope maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://lists.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev )
