Dave Thomas writes:
 
# "Nathaniel Talbott" <ntalbott / rolemodelsoft.com> writes:
# 
# > For starters, I'm running XEmacs 21.1 on Windows 2000. I'm more new to 
emacs
# > than Ruby (which means I'm REALLY new to emacs :), and I can't get 
syntax
# > highlighting to work with the ruby mode. I've modified my .emacs file 
to
# > include the necessary lines, and, indeed, the mode line says Ruby when 
I
# > load a .rb file.
# 
# The problem is that the ruby-mode.el file checks for the presence of
# 'font-lock', but it's loaded on demand, and so isn't present at the
# time the test is made.
# 
# My naive work-around is to

use gvim (www.vim.org). ... And then I put ":syntax off" in my _gvimrc 
(Win NT) and .gvimrc (AIX) files to suppress syntax highlighting. :-) 

 Which brings up the question of why does the Ruby FAQ give a link to one 
Vim syntax file, while Vim5.7 ships with a different syntax file? (I 
suspect the answer is because Vim5.7 is fairly recent, and Vim5.6 didn't 
have a Ruby syntax file.)

Which brings up the question of how the Emacs syntax highlighting scheme 
differs from the 2 Vim schemes. Is there any chance of a common 
consolidated scheme? As color slowly becomes ever more seemingly 
semi-omni-present in documentation, it might be nice to have a single 
common scheme of code coloring for editing and documentation. 

Finally, out of curiosity, do most people that use syntax highlighting 
also normally use dark text on a light background, or light text on a dark 
background?

Conrad Schneiker
(This note is unofficial and subject to improvement without notice.)