On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 07, 08 19:44:07 +0100, Maarten Maathuis wrote: >> Perhaps now would be the time to standardise on a beheaviour, my >> personal opinion is that, the >> user should see something that represents the connectors on the back >> of their computer. Anything else should become a property of that >> connector (since it's automatic in 99% of the cases). Was there any >> good reason in that discussion to do otherwise? > > The discussion was rather length and technical, but there are use cases > where you want to drive the analog pins of e.g. and DVI-I connector > differently from the digital pins. That's not possible if outputs and > connectors are mapped 1:1.
Overriding the encoder/output/whatever behind the connector is what i would put under a property. Unless you're referring to actually using both the analog and digital pins at the same time, which seems like a very strange situation (and what percentage of hardware would actually allow this?). Considering you've only got one set of ddc pins. > > But why do you insist on standardized names? As long as the names > resemble something user can understand, the exact names shouldn't > matter. Selecting outputs by properties (connector or signal type) might > be something interesting for generalized scripts. > > Matthias > > -- > Matthias Hopf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> __ __ __ > Maxfeldstr. 5 / 90409 Nuernberg (_ | | (_ |__ [EMAIL > PROTECTED] > Phone +49-911-74053-715 __) |_| __) |__ R & D www.mshopf.de > _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
