From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: Re: More conspicous header lines Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:56:10 -0400 Message-ID: <12352.1248357370@gamaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <877hy09xjw.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> <87hbx3n6ci.fsf@gmail.com> <87ocrb4wn8.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTynn-0002BQ-TW for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:57:43 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTynj-00026N-Bt for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:57:43 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59494 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MTynj-00026I-8E for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:57:39 -0400 Received: from vms173007pub.verizon.net ([206.46.173.7]:17864) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MTyni-0002hY-NE for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:57:38 -0400 Received: from gamaville.dokosmarshall.org ([98.110.172.159]) by vms173007.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-7.04 (built Sep 26 2008; 32bit)) with ESMTPA id <0KN8001IQMOVBS32@vms173007.mailsrvcs.net> for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:55:46 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: Message from Bastien of "Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:43:39 +0200." <87ocrb4wn8.fsf@bzg.ath.cx> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Bastien Cc: emacs-orgmode@gnu.org, Paul Mead Bastien wrote: > Paul Mead writes: > > > Bastien writes: > > > >> > >> Please people vote. It's a tiny change but since we all have different > >> preferences for such things, it's good to have a sense of what everyone > >> thinks... > > > > What are we voting for, to make this *possible* or *default*? > > Default. > IIUC, the suggestion is to change the headlines regexp in org-set-font-lock-defaults, but you are *not* suggesting that the face definitions be changed to have a background color - is that correct? If that's the case, I see little, if any, harm in the change (although, like Paul Mead, I don't think I'm going to use the feature: I find it obnoxiously loud.) The point is that the above is an opt-in system: the regexp enables the look, but nothing happens until the end-user customizes the face. If you *are* suggesting changing the faces as well as the regexp, it becomes an opt-out system, and I for one would object. Thanks, Nick