On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:46 PM, Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > John Kåre Alsaker wrote: > >> >> I expect a compositor to render deviations of the desired scaling >> factor without scaling windows. The range when this is allowed is >> reported to clients so they can try to render at a size which will >> avoid scaling. >> >> For example a compositor may want to use a 1-1.2 range with 1.1 as >> the desired scaling factor. A clients which are only able to draw at >> integer scaling factor would round that up to 2 and let the >> compositor downscale it. When the range for which compositor won't >> scale is send to clients we can avoid this. >> > > I don't think a range is necessary. The client can just claim that it's > window is scaled at 1.1 even though it drew it at 1. Or at 2.2 even though > it drew it at 2. Nothing stops the client from doing this so you might as > well make that the way integer scales are done. > Then the user drags the window that claims to be draw at 1.1 over to a monitor with scaling factor 1. It will be downscaled even though it's a perfect match for the monitor. > > With the range, what happens to a surface with a scale of 1.3? Is it > scaled by 1.3? Or should it be 1.3/1.2 times larger than the one scaled at > 1.2, which is actually 1.191666? For this reason I think any scale wanted > by the client should be obeyed literally. It will be scaled by client_scaling_factor/output_scaling_factor, which is 1.3/1.1. > > We may also allow scaling factors below 1. >> > > I think scaling factors less than 1 are going to be a requirement. > Otherwise the "units" have to be for the lowest-resolution device, which > seems silly if you have a huge hi-res screen and a small lcd low-res > display on your keyboard. > Perhaps, but I'd expect clients to do a lot of rounded up making the scaling not very linear.
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
