> Unfortunately it is neither bold nor bright now. :-( And it is more > inconsistent now than before, IMHO. What was the original intention for > those fixes? Only ugly bold chars rendering? Most other terminals use this as a "bright" version and use the lighter colors, which we have in the range 8-15. These can't be used in any other way when following ECMA-48, which is the standard for these control codes and can be downloaded here : http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-048.pdf SGR (Set Graphic Rendition) is specified at page 62. You can still reach bold characters using \E[5m. This is nonstandard as well, as this one should render blinking chars. Not sure we want to support that. SGR 5 was already enabling bold before these changes. To test the changes, you can use the vttest program. http://invisible-island.net/vttest/ This compiles on Haiku without any problem and shows several problems with our Terminal. Mixing bold and blinking chars is only one of them. I'm ok with separating the "bright" from the color itself and render it using tint_color (or saturated add) in the terminal view instead. We could also add support for 'faint' colors this way. > It is funny, but yesterday evenening I was ready to push fix with more > clear "R5-like" bold rendering but you was ahead of me for about ten > minutes. :-D So I have to stashed it for the future. > May be you revert your changeset and we try R5-like rendering instead? We can have both :) The fix for bold should not touch the parser which this change modifies, and the bold attribute can still be set with \E[5m at least for testing. The main problem I have is that most unixish application expect bright/bold over a background of the same color to be visible (this is what happens on a VGA video card and most terminal emulators). Using bold won't work for this, so I went for "bright" using colors already available in our extended palette. -- Adrien.