Icon-theme-spec update for scaled icons

Vincent Gerris vgerris at gmail.com
Wed Jul 3 09:25:08 PDT 2013

Thank you very much for your explanation. Perhaps Wayland will be
ported to Mac OS X then :).

On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Alexander Larsson <alexl at redhat.com> wrote:
>> I assume this is for MacBook (pro) retina screens and Google's
>> Chromebook?
> For example. This kind of thing is just going to be more and more
> common.
>> Could you say something about the changes to wayland?
> Well, you can look at the protocol changes if you want, but basically a
> wayland compositor can decide to use a "scaling factor" for a particular
> output, typically 2. The "size" of that output and windows on it will be
> scaled by that. Soo, e.g. you could have (for easy math) a setup with
> two outputs, one is 2000x2000 and the other one is 1000x1000. The
> compositor pick scale=2 and reports the screens as 1000x1000 at 2x and
> 1000x1000 at 1x. A window of size 1000x1000 would exactly fill the screen
> on both outputs, but would be scaled up on the first.
> Additionally, apps can look at the output scale and supply a higher
> resolution buffer for the window if it knows its displayed on that
> output. In this case the window "size" would still be 1000x1000, but the
> app says "window-scale is 2" and supplies a 2000x2000 surface when it
> draws. In this case the compositor doesn't have to scale up (but may
> gave to scale down on the lowres monitor).
>> I am running Xquartz to run X11 apps on OS X and it looks pretty
>> crappy now on a retina screen.
>> I read on some X11 mailing list they wil not fix it.
> Fixing X to do scaling is pretty hard, at the very least it will involve
> X extensions and WM/Compositor support. I don't think apple is very
> interested in this.
>> If wayland does fix it, perhaps I can point the devs to the code and
>> hope they can do anything with it.
> It won't help them. X and Wayland are just too different in this case.

More information about the xdg mailing list