[Fwd: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122] | |
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] | |
-------- Original-Nachricht -------- Betreff: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122 Datum: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:00:29 -0700 Von: xorg-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Antwort an: xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx An: xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Send xorg mailing list submissions to xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to xorg-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx You can reach the person managing the list at xorg-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of xorg digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure (Michael Verret) 2. Re: Resolution indpendence (Steven J Newbury) 3. Re: Resolution indpendence (Daniel Stone) 4. Further notes on 7.4 (Adam Jackson) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:30:43 -0500 From: "Michael Verret" <michael.verret@xxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure To: "Dan Nicholson" <dbn.lists@xxxxxxxxx> Cc: xorg list <xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <a55077760806301130u5c88be9dk9f97f9d96809d092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > It doesn't exactly correspond to modules/tarballs, though. Probably > someone should keep the Releases/ModuleVersions page updated. For > instance, xkbdata is listed at version 1.0.1 for Xorg 7.2 and 7.3, but > it was deprecated in 7.2 and not released as part of either. > > -- > Dan > Things like this make it hard to follow what's what. Try as I may with all of the above you mentioned not one of them seems to included everything. http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/7.4 does not list deprecated modules, http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/ModuleDescriptions is not updated and http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/doc/xorg-docs/tree/MAINTAINERS is missing info for modules such as "xrx". I am very, very humbly asking for a up-to-date master list of what state the modules are in. I'll gladly maintain this list if I can be informed of changes. I have helped with updating http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/7.4 but I now feel not informed enough to continue, for example I saw that xrx was recently updated yet it is deprecated? Michael ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:40:37 +0100 From: Steven J Newbury <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence To: Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <1214851237.15478.25.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:03 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 06:21:22PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Ven 27 juin 2008 17:50, Daniel Stone a ?crit : > > > The problem as I see it is the conflation of DPI as 'the thing I need > > > to > > > change to make my fonts render at a reasonable size because 12pt is > > > the > > > standard for very reasonably readable text and changing all my > > > documents > > > as stupid' (users care about) > > > > Actually, no. You have two sources of computer text: > > > > 1. system applications that should just use the user default font size > > -> have a setting where the user enters his preferred font, the > > preferred size for it in pt, and have apps obey it (with % sizes for > > titles) > > > > 2. documents produced by someone else, that may use different prefs > > from the ones of the user > > -> all the apps that manage those documents have a built-in zoom > > system, and it's stupid to even try to correct all those with a > > system-wide dpi kludge because every external document won't use the > > same font sizes anyway and the correction will vary document per > > document (you can try to automate "match to the system font size later > > but it'd be a dynamic document-specific adjustment not a fixed fake > > dpi value) > > > > So "the thing you need to change for documents" is document-specific. > > No, because everyone except desktop publishers deals in a standard, > well-understood set of point sizes, which they expect to translate at > about 96dpi, instead of maybe reallyreallytiny or LUDICROUSLY BIG. I really don't understand this argument. Surely this is only the case because most people use 1024x768: [ http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.html ] Yes, that's right, most people set the resolution of their display to a value lower than the display hw optimimum so that text (and image) sizes are what they are accustomed to. Most(!) people work around the fact the 96dpi hack by adujsting the resolution! > > > And it's different from "the thing you need to change for the desktop > > gui" where you have *not* reason not to use pt size directly assuming > > you kill all the dpi forcing kludges which have make it lose a > > specific meaning on many systems. > > I'd be more than happy for everything to be redesignated as 'size' > rather than points, because as you say, it stops the conflation of the > two use cases. One use case involves people who just want to use their > computer and have it behave as they expect. The other involve people > who get very upset when their computer behaves in a manner that's not > completely in accordance with certain rigid principles. I'm sorry, but computers *should* act in accordance with rigid priciples otherwise what's the point? That's why we have standards, no? > > > > and 'thing which must match my physical > > > properties exactly as I'm doing typesetting' (statistically, no-one > > > cares about this). > > > > Do you have any study that says users would not like this? They only > > do not care because it's been broken so long (just as they didn't care > > about AA text when the only thing available was pixelated bitmap > > fonts). > > > > > As long as the > > > two > > > are fundamentally in opposition, > > > > They're only in fundamental opposition because some people insist in > > abusing physical scaling to change font sizes instead of > > (revolutionnary idea) just specifying different size defaults > > Look, I'm happy that you care about this stuff. Really, because we need > more people to tell us that we're screwing up and going wrong. But > please trust me that real people don't feel that way. They see 'size > 12' (something readable), rather than '12pt' (however many inches). > Nothing that exists today works at all with high-density displays -- the > Nokia tablets still just always smash the DPI to 96 or so, because > surprisingly you have NO ROOM ON YOUR SCREEN AT 220DPI BECAUSE > EVERYTHING IS REALLY BIG AND JUST IMAGINE THIS BIT IS TAKING UP THIRTEEN > LINES RATHER THAN JUST BEING IN CAPS. It's ridiculous. This just makes no sense. If the true DPI is 220 on a decent size screen, text at 12pt will be unreadable by most if the system DPI is fixed to 96! It will only give the expected (readable) result by either setting a lower screen resolution or by using the true DPI to render the text! ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:51:29 +0300 From: Daniel Stone <daniel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence To: Steven J Newbury <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot@xxxxxxxxxxx> Message-ID: <20080630185129.GD24418@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:40:37PM +0100, Steven J Newbury wrote: > I really don't understand this argument. Surely this is only the case > because most people use 1024x768: > [ http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.html ] > > Yes, that's right, most people set the resolution of their display to a > value lower than the display hw optimimum so that text (and image) sizes > are what they are accustomed to. Most(!) people work around the fact the > 96dpi hack by adujsting the resolution! Also because Windows is generally terrible at autodetecting these things, but yes. > I'm sorry, but computers *should* act in accordance with rigid priciples > otherwise what's the point? That's why we have standards, no? Depends on whether the rigid principles are in opposition to general expectations or not. > This just makes no sense. If the true DPI is 220 on a decent size > screen, text at 12pt will be unreadable by most if the system DPI is > fixed to 96! It will only give the expected (readable) result by either > setting a lower screen resolution or by using the true DPI to render the > text! Right, because all 220 DPI screens are usually viewed from long distances, right? Except that the vast majority of higher-density screens are used in mobile devices, hence my example of the 770/N800/N810 having forced the reported DPI to be artificially low. Cheers, Daniel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/871b0850/attachment-0001.pgp ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:54:50 -0400 From: Adam Jackson <ajax@xxxxxxxx> Subject: Further notes on 7.4 To: xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Message-ID: <1214852090.24769.98.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Content-Type: text/plain We will not be doing the -X11R7.4- badging in tarball names anymore. No one I talked to could come up with any reason for still wanting this, and it's busy work I don't feel like doing. If you really still want it, convince me. I've updated the module list with my current understanding of what modules are included and what versions people want in 7.4. If you haven't seen this file, you really should: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/module-list.txt While this list still includes most of the input drivers, be aware that most of them are slated for the block, according to the input crew. If you're not evdev/kbd/mouse/vmmouse/void start justifying your existence. In the same vein, I suspect XEvIE will either go away or be much changed by 7.5. Note that almost all of the graphics demos and core font utilities are gone in that list. Yes, this is intentional. xeyes is not a critical component of the modern desktop. Run them if you want, but they're not part of the core release anymore. The core fonts are still listed there, but really, don't. The only one you want is font-misc-misc for fixed/cursor, expect the rest to leave the list in 7.5. - ajax ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg End of xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122 ************************************* _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
[X Forum] [Devices] [XFree86] [XFree86 Newbie] [Site Home] [IETF Annouce] [Security] [Fontconfig] [Bugtraq] [Rubini] [Photo] [Yosemite] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Video for Linux] [Linux RAID] [Linux Resources]