[PATCH weston 4/8] protocol: crop & scale RFC v3
daniel at fooishbar.org
Wed Nov 27 13:51:21 PST 2013
On 27 November 2013 20:08, Bill Spitzak <spitzak at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 12:34 AM, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
>> I have explained all this before. Nothing here has changed.
> I realize this but I still have to express my complete dumbfoundment that
> you think this is ok.
You're attempting to design for the problem space where clients create
configurations which cannot be displayed except by attempting to
invent the concept of 'partial pixels', where a buffer size of
79.3333... is not only meaningful but a design goal. The opposing
position is 'don't do that': clients should avoid getting themselves
into these situations in the first place.
Your proposals really come across as attempting to design for
situations which should never occur (and can't meaningfully be dealt
with by extant hardware), optimising for hugely misguided clients in a
fit of completism. That's your view, which you've made very clear,
but I don't think it's shared by anyone else in these threads.
More information about the wayland-devel