Want a cheap Watch?
http://fvh.hensi.com
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:55:20PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - Font hints are not designed for small pixel sizes at arbitrary
> DPIs. I have shown this via screenshots which I posted.
See Keith's answer
> - GNOME defaults to a 10 point font for the application font.
On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 11:09:31AM +1100, Drew Parsons wrote:
> I guess we can do it now. xprt (xfree86) does not work and Fabio was
> already prepared to remove it now before sarge.
Of course, neither does xprt-xprintorg, but that's a minor quibble. :)
Does *anything* besides Mozilla care about
Hi X StrikeForce,
We agreed with Fabio in recent past that you will drop xprt completely
from "xfree86", and that I would take it over via xprt-xprintorg.
We need to coordinate this so you remove your xprt before I provide
mine. The plan is that I will rename xprt-xprintorg to xprt, and
xprt-xpr
Hi everyone,
What i think this discussion boils down to, is the question
"Is there a standard way to relate a granularity-angle to
the fontcharacteristic that is (for example in xlfd) called 'dpi' ?".
If there is , i would like to know.
If there isn't, this discussion belongs o
Around 12 o'clock on Dec 6, Billy Biggs wrote:
> - Font hints are not designed for small pixel sizes at arbitrary
> DPIs. I have shown this via screenshots which I posted.
I don't know of any hinting technology which cares about DPI. But,
TrueType fonts usually contain delta hints which
but one that is not highly charged. It is on a level of quiet competitionexecs used to show up at conferences and tell everyone thatand later than the era of Aesop, rightfully bears his name,
This region is mostly ocean to the south, with a small plain surrounded by this region is almost comple
Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > It's a good idea (I would be in support of this for sure). However,
> > my experience supporting users on IRC is that it is rare that X gets
> > this far. Usually DDC provides some values, and X will end up
> > calculating anything between 80 and 133 DPI. If
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 10:30:22AM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think we agree on this. My opinion was that either every display
> manager set the DPI in their config file (and that be the "one" place)
> or its done elsewhere. Consensus seems to be to do it elsewhere.
Well
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 17:03 +0100, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
>
> I would not like to have my screen projected with 1/2 inch (or 1 cm or
> whatever galactic leagues) letters high. In fact, I do not want to know
> the dpi of my projector (which varies according to the distance between
> it and t
Hi Mike, I think we're getting somewhere.
Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > 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
> I would not like to have my screen projected with 1/2 inch (or 1 cm or
> whatever galactic leagues) letters high. In fact, I do not want to know
> the dpi of my projector (which varies according to the distance between
> it and the wall, anyway).
>
> So I would have to lie about the DPI of my pr
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:49:12PM +0900, Mike Hommey
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:26:38AM -0600, Billy Biggs
> > 3. DPI becomes more complicated given different display devices such
> > as data projectors.
>
> I don't see why. The only problem that could happen is that when
> plugging in t
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 poi
Hi Mike,
I think I understand your point of view. Please correct me where I am
wrong.
- You feel that font sizes should be based on how large they will
physically be -- the DPI for UI rendering should be the "real" DPI.
- You think that having two DPI parameters is silly, and that
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:49:12PM +0900, Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. Font hints are designed for specific font sizes at certain common
> > DPIs. There is value in using a small set of "standard" DPI values
> > for UI rendering. (see http://scanline.ca/dpi/fonts.htm
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:26:38AM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Other operating systems do not use the screen's DPI when rendering
> fonts. On Windows, there is a different function to determine the
> real DPI of the display, separate from the DPI used in text
>
Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:23:48AM +, Anders Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Well, yes and no. If you are a normal user, you would not have to
> > tweak anything. If you mess with printing/image manipulating a lot,
> > then you might have to tweak
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 21:47 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:17:27PM +, Anders Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > I still fail to see the advantage of having 2 settings of the same
> > > thing, being the number of dots per inch.
> >
> > Golden middle way then, i
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.3.0.dfsg.1-8
Severity: serious
Justification: unknown, X-windows crashes which is unacceptable for a
production system
The data below are not really applicable, because I've put in another
video card. I've spent more than a day re/configuring. Problem is,
th
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:17:27PM +, Anders Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > I still fail to see the advantage of having 2 settings of the same
> > thing, being the number of dots per inch.
>
> Golden middle way then, if the X DPI is specified manually in the
> XF86Config, the Xft.dpi
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 20:44 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:23:48AM +, Anders Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Well, yes and no. If you are a normal user, you would not have to tweak
> > anything. If you mess with printing/image manipulating a lot, then you
> >
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 11:23:48AM +, Anders Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Well, yes and no. If you are a normal user, you would not have to tweak
> anything. If you mess with printing/image manipulating a lot, then you
> might have to tweak two sets of values, one to tell X what DPI t
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 18:57 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:52:57AM +, Anders Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 16:20 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:19:25PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> >
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 12:58:30AM -0800, Keith Packard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Around 8 o'clock on Dec 6, Anders Karlsson wrote:
>
> > No, he said he wanted to make Xft applications default to 96 DPI.
> > Nothing stopping you from tweaking the Xft.dpi value to what you want it
> > to be.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 08:52:57AM +, Anders Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 16:20 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:19:25PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > The GNOME system has the nice property that it can be chang
Around 8 o'clock on Dec 6, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> No, he said he wanted to make Xft applications default to 96 DPI.
> Nothing stopping you from tweaking the Xft.dpi value to what you want it
> to be.
So should Xft just default to 96dpi and let the Xft.dpi value override
that? Right now, Xft
On Mon, 2004-12-06 at 16:20 +0900, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:19:25PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > The GNOME system has the nice property that it can be changed without
> > restarting X. Moving towards systems with this property is a good
> > thing.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2004 at 07:26:24AM +0100, Jean-Christophe Dubacq <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, Keith's computation is a bit hard: I tested 120 dpi with my
> 1600x1200 and already find those fonts are gigantic. I would not like
> staying with 150.
Probably because you're using 12 or 13 poi
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:19:25PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GNOME system has the nice property that it can be changed without
> restarting X. Moving towards systems with this property is a good
> thing. GNOME also advertises it in a vendor neutral way (XSETTINGS) and
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 09:19:25PM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Regardless, my proposal is simply to have Xft always default to 96
> DPI, independent of the DPI value you put in X.
I read your proposal, and find it is a good one (well argued and
everything). However, this means that the real dpi
31 matches
Mail list logo
