Michel Dänzer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 13:05 -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> >
> > Vera Sans 8 is 10 pixels high at 126 DPI and cannot go any lower
> > [...]
>
> You mean because the GUI doesn't offer lower sizes? You can still
> enter them manually.
OK so that argument wasn't
On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 13:05 -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
>
> Vera Sans 8 is 10 pixels high at 126 DPI and cannot go any lower [...]
You mean because the GUI doesn't offer lower sizes? You can still enter
them manually.
--
Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer
Li
Thanks Mike for taking the time to keep this up. While this
conversation has not been conclusive, it has at least been thorough :)
Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > - Font hints are not designed for small pixel sizes at arbitrary
> > DPIs. I have shown this via screenshots which I po
Le mardi 07 décembre 2004 à 11:45 +0900, Mike Hommey a écrit :
> > - GNOME defaults to a 10 point font for the application font. My
> > experience dictates that users find this too small on their
> > autodetected 80-DPI screens, and too large at their autodetected
> > 133-DPI screens
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.
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
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
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
Mike Hommey ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:55:17PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > I discussed this issue further and updated my proposal. Given that
> > many people do believe that a measure of the "real" DPI is a useful
> > thing to keep around, and that
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 08:55:17PM -0600, Billy Biggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I discussed this issue further and updated my proposal. Given that
> many people do believe that a measure of the "real" DPI is a useful
> thing to keep around, and that all font rendering systems seem to honour
>
Keith Packard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> In the X world, we now have two resolutions -- the "real" resolution
> as reported by the X server screen size information, and the "font"
> resolution as used by Xft (the Xft.dpi resource). I would like to see
> the "real" resolution be largely ignored by app
Around 15 o'clock on Dec 5, Billy Biggs wrote:
> This is exactly what I am proposing, basically. Screen DPI today is
> meaningless on Windows because they use it as a scale factor,
> meaningless on MacOS because it is always 72, and meaningless on Linux
> because it is set basically randomly unl
Simon Law ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I disagree. If I hook my laptop up to a data projector, I do not
> > want all of my fonts to shrink to nothingness.
>
> I think that the data projector would have to lie about its DPI. It
> doesn't even make sense for a data projector to tell anyone about its
Jean-Christophe Dubacq ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Unless if you are working with graphics. If I want to evaluate the
> proper rendering of a map I am working on (either in bitmap or in
> vectorial mode), I pretty would like to check how my map compares to
> the counters that are exactly 3/4" or 1/2" w
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:12:08AM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Anders Karlsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > The best scenario would be if X + Desktop Environment picked up on the
> > actual DPI of the screen(s) and adjusted for that automatically.
>
> I disagree. If I hook my laptop up to a data
On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 10:12:08AM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> > The best scenario would be if X + Desktop Environment picked up on the
> > actual DPI of the screen(s) and adjusted for that automatically.
>
> I disagree. If I hook my laptop up to a data projector, I do not want
> all of my font
Anders Karlsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> The best scenario would be if X + Desktop Environment picked up on the
> actual DPI of the screen(s) and adjusted for that automatically.
I disagree. If I hook my laptop up to a data projector, I do not want
all of my fonts to shrink to nothingness.
I
On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 09:26 +0100, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:18:42PM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> > Right now, GNOME users default to 96 DPI, xdm users default to 100
> > DPI, and other users are randomly assigned DPIs anywhere in the range of
> > 75-133. I believ
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:18:42PM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Right now, GNOME users default to 96 DPI, xdm users default to 100
> DPI, and other users are randomly assigned DPIs anywhere in the range of
> 75-133. I believe that right now, we should adopt the GNOME standard
> everywhere as the
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 10:18:42PM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> Right now, GNOME users default to 96 DPI, xdm users default to 100
> DPI, and other users are randomly assigned DPIs anywhere in the range of
> 75-133. I believe that right now, we should adopt the GNOME standard
> everywhere as the
Simon Law ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 07:27:50PM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> > I would like to act on the proposal described in the web page, that
> > is, get everyone to ship with X starting at a default DPI of 96x96,
> > and have fontconfig changed to default to this as well.
On Sat, Dec 04, 2004 at 07:27:50PM -0600, Billy Biggs wrote:
> I would like to act on the proposal described in the web page, that
> is, get everyone to ship with X starting at a default DPI of 96x96, and
> have fontconfig changed to default to this as well.
I must respectfully disagree.
We rea
A common problem I have in supporting my software under Linux is font
size. Depending on how the user starts X, or which desktop environment
they use, the size of their fonts will change. I would like to fix this
problem, and so I have posted a document describing what's going on, and
what I wo
45 matches
Mail list logo
