You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by bu...@bugzilla.spamassassin.org on 2012/03/08 23:04:05 UTC

[Bug 6760] [review] HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST doesn't handle 3 character color shorthand

https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=6760

Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kmcgrail@pccc.com

--- Comment #2 from Kevin A. McGrail <km...@pccc.com> 2012-03-08 22:04:05 UTC ---
Sorry for the delay on reviewing this.  You appear to have unraveled a bit of a
can of worms.

OK, so let's deal with the issues one at a time.

First: Should #789 be 070809 or 778899? 

Well, it should be 778899 and
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2899197/does-style-color-fff-render-as-f0f0f0-or-ffffff
has a good answer verifying this.

However, it should only be 778899 for CSS implementations.  

This means that name_to_rgb is fundamentally flawed as are several tests in
t/html_colors.t

>From reading, these flaws are the basis on JGC's research from 2004 into IE
parsing bugs.  Those flaws are really no longer relevant.

I am not sure if want to dig into the CSS vs normal HTML.


Second: I agree.  The check for low contrast should include near and identical
colors.


I'll attach some patches and research in a little while.  Still running tests.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.