于 2011年05月13日 01:47, Bill Spitzak 写道: > microcai wrote: > >> They can't care how big a windows is in the pixel, but in the inch. >> >> People should have different monitors with different DPI. Windows should >> stay same size regardless the DPI. >> >> Force DPI==96 on every monitor is a stupid idea, and we should avoid it >> on the protocol side. > > The reason this had to be done was due to the incredibly stupid idea > that only *fonts* are measured in points, and every other graphic is > measured in pixels. This strange idea was on both X and Windows, likely > due to the initial programs being terminal emulators where there was no > graphics other than text. What this really means is that there are two > different coordinate systems for all the graphics, and programmers just > assumed these two systems always lined up exactly like they did on their > screen.
That's not true. DPI is not only used by font size, but also by image size and ther things.... You don't want you 300DPI screen display *tiny tiny font*, will you? By designing the protocol *DPI aware*, and force the application deal with the DPI natively, we get better user experience. > > After a lot of awful looking output on screens with different DPI, both > Windows and then X resorted to just forcing the DPI to 96, thus making > the systems obey the programmer's assumptions. Bad DPI settings are > still a bug on X, producing ridiculous large and tiny font sizes > unexpectedly, and this is NEVER wanted. > > The correct solution would have been to specify all coordinates in the > same units, likely 1 unit in the CTM. For practical reasons on > current-day screens this wants to be a pixel by default, but there is no > reason a program can't read the DPI and set the CTM to draw actual-size > graphics. > >> I suggest, DPI should also be windows specific, so that compositor can >> *scale it*. > > If I understand it right, a Wayland window has both a rectangle measured > in screen coordinates, and a source image that can be a different size. > The compositor is expected to transform the source image (scale it) to > fit in the rectangle. No, if the compositor want to *scale* it with eye candy, the client must scale it . not the compositor. The compositor change the DPI, then the client will scale it automatically.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel