Re: Adding CMake to 1.15.x release notes

On 23. 7. 2026 12:37, Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
> Den tors 23 juli 2026 kl 12:30 skrev Ivan Zhakov <[email protected]>:
>
>     On Thu, 23 Jul 2026 at 10:00, Daniel Sahlberg
>     <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>         Den tors 23 juli 2026 kl 05:04 skrev Nathan Hartman
>         <[email protected]>:
>
>             On Wed, Jul 22, 2026 at 6:03 PM Thomas Åkesson
>             <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>             [...]
>
>             > > Well, it sounds like that won't use Javascript, so
>             sure, +1 to that.
>             > >
>             > > Another thing that is lacking: the original Google
>             Docs spreadsheet
>             > > had cell background colors, like green for Yes and red
>             for No. I lost
>             > > all of this formatting when I exported the table to
>             HTML and then
>             > > search-and-replaced stuff in the resulting HTML to
>             match how we do
>             > > tables elsewhere. I wanted to reinstate the colors but
>             it seems we
>             > > don't currently have the CSS for it. I didn't want to
>             just rush in and
>             > > tack on a few more CSS classes in style/site.css, but
>             I also didn't
>             > > want to add CSS tags to every td tag. WDYT?
>             >
>             > Just want to mention the html <details> element that
>             might be a viable alternative.
>             >
>             > Thanks,
>             > Thomas Å.
>             >
>
>     [...]
>
>
>         Regarding highlighting of the Yes/No/NA-boxes, feel free to
>         add something in the CSS. We already have something called a
>         task-table but it is only suitable to highlight a complete row
>         (you set the class "completed" on the <tr> element as far as I
>         understand). How about something like this?
>
>     Not a strong opinion, but between two of these options I like the
>     colored backgrounds more. Both of them are readable, but the
>     background variant does that without adding visual glyphs to every
>     row.
>
>     But I am fine with both approaches.
>
>
> I was slightly worried about the accessibility perspective but it 
> seems those colours provide a reasonable contrast. In addition the 
> colour is only a secondary way of conveying the information - the text 
> is also there.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Red%E2%80%93green_color_blindness

I'm not an accessibility expert, just noting that the issue exists. 
Another possible issue is that of contrast between background and text .


> So let's go with this.

And please also fix that column title, we do not use Automake, perish 
the thought. We use Autoconf and Libtool.

-- Brane


P.S.: We did use automake for a couple weeks ... that didn't end well :D