Re: Feature Request: define colour in relation to existing colour

[Thangalin <thangalin@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 913 bytes --]

For context, here is the question on TeX.SE:

http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/129297/define-colour-transparency-in-relation-to-existing-colour

I agree with Marco:

Are you sure it's a good idea to add another colour definition
> mechanism? Then we have
>
  \definecolor
  \defineglobalcolor
  \definenamedcolor
  \definespotcolor
  \definemultitonecolor
  \defineprocesscolor

That is a little confusing. I can understand a speed requirement, but
surely that can be taken into consideration beneath the definition?

\definecolor[A][r=1, g=0, b=0]
\definecolor[B][A][a=1, t=0.5]

That seems fairly reasonable. Also, why not embed colour spaces within the
command?

    \definecolor[A][colorspace=spot]
    \definecolor[A][colorspace=multitone]
    \definecolor[A][colorspace=pantone]

One command to define a colour, rather than several commands for specific
variations of defining colours.

Kind regards.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1444 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 485 bytes --]

___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________