On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 09:38:06AM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > I think that's fair enough, I mean, I think the font design problem is > somewhat intractable and therefore you'll never get great-looking text > at small pixel sizes, but we can happily diagree on this point. I don't > want to stop you from configuring your system this way.
Thanks for understanding my point of view > My priority is solving the practical problem we have today: many > Linux users by default are given systems with seemingly random DPI > values, and they have to go configure all of their fonts. Can we agree > that this is a problem worth solving? Standardizing the default DPI > value at the Xft level rather than the X server level seems to have > better consensus, so I think it is a good start. I can only talk about my experience with X, but the only problems I got were: - badly detected screen size making the dpi to be a default 75dpi. - dpi being forced in ?dm at 100dpi. The second issue is obvious to solve: just stop to force the dpi this way. The first one would need more input. As I understand it (but it's only with my limited experience of it), X fallsback to 75dpi when it can't correctly detect display size. Wouldn't changing this fallback value to 96dpi be a much more pleasant solution ? > [...] > My point was simply that there is a lot of practical evidence that > this method works well, especially on the Mac which seems quite popular > for desktop publishing. Actually the Mac problem is that their quite ridiculous dpi setting is used to justify their pretty bad LCD screens (as per pixel density) > The problem is that these display devices reduce the value of using > the "real" DPI for UI rendering. Actually, X seeded DPI being calculated from pixel size on display, using XRandR to resize the display to the external display resolution will bring a useable and probably expected result. Mike
