On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 21:31 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 12:31:50PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Like I replied to ajax, I suspect when the problem of assuming > > everything's 96dpi becomes simply too acute, instead of fixing > > everything really properly so that all displays correct report their > > size and all desktops actually do resolution independence perfectly so > > it doesn't _matter_ if one of your displays is 98dpi and the other is > > 215dpi, everything still looks perfect, the industry will just wind up > > with a slightly more sophisticated bodge where we have a few 'standard' > > resolutions and just figure out which one your displays are closest to. > > But that's still going to require some kind of sensible handling of the > > case where one monitor is roughly 100dpi and the other is roughly > > 200dpi, unless we simply say 'you can't do that, all your displays have > > to be in the same DPI Category'. > > Sure, in the future when we have font renderers that run in GPU shaders > we can think about whether there's a plausible way to make applications > work when they have to deal with multiple DPIs simultaneously. But we > don't have any technology that can do any of that at the moment, and so > the simple fact is that right now the decision to have gnome run at > 96dpi regardless of the output is an entirely rational one and anyone > who argues otherwise gets to explain how all the difficult bits would > work. The end. I'm just saying it would probably pay off to put some thought *now* into how to manage things when higher resolution displays become so prevalent that they can't be ignored, rather than desperately scrambling to catch up when you eventually realize it's happened. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
