[Fwd: xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122]

[Regina]

-------- Original-Nachricht --------
Betreff: 	xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122
Datum: 	Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:00:29 -0700
Von: 	xorg-request at lists.freedesktop.org
Antwort an: 	xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
An: 	xorg at lists.freedesktop.org



Send xorg mailing list submissions to
	xorg at lists.freedesktop.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	xorg-request at lists.freedesktop.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	xorg-owner at lists.freedesktop.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of xorg digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure (Michael Verret)
   2. Re: Resolution indpendence (Steven J Newbury)
   3. Re: Resolution indpendence (Daniel Stone)
   4. Further notes on 7.4 (Adam Jackson)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:30:43 -0500
From: "Michael Verret" <michael.verret at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: xrx-1.0.2 compilation failure
To: "Dan Nicholson" <dbn.lists at gmail.com>
Cc: xorg list <xorg at lists.freedesktop.org>
Message-ID:
	<a55077760806301130u5c88be9dk9f97f9d96809d092 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> It doesn't exactly correspond to modules/tarballs, though. Probably
> someone should keep the Releases/ModuleVersions page updated. For
> instance, xkbdata is listed at version 1.0.1 for Xorg 7.2 and 7.3, but
> it was deprecated in 7.2 and not released as part of either.
>
> --
> Dan
>

Things like this make it hard to follow what's what. Try as I may with
all of the above you mentioned not one of them seems to included
everything. http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/7.4 does not list
deprecated modules,
http://xorg.freedesktop.org/wiki/ModuleDescriptions is not updated and
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/doc/xorg-docs/tree/MAINTAINERS is
missing info for modules such as "xrx".

I am very, very humbly asking for a up-to-date master list of what
state the modules are in. I'll gladly maintain this list if I can be
informed of changes. I have helped with updating
http://www.x.org/wiki/Releases/7.4 but I now feel not informed enough
to continue, for example I saw that xrx was recently updated yet it is
deprecated?

Michael


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 19:40:37 +0100
From: Steven J Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>
Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence
To: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org, Nicolas Mailhot
	<nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
Message-ID:
	<1214851237.15478.25.camel at infinity.southview.snewbury.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:03 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 06:21:22PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le Ven 27 juin 2008 17:50, Daniel Stone a ?crit :
> > > The problem as I see it is the conflation of DPI as 'the thing I need
> > > to
> > > change to make my fonts render at a reasonable size because 12pt is
> > > the
> > > standard for very reasonably readable text and changing all my
> > > documents
> > > as stupid' (users care about)
> > 
> > Actually, no. You have two sources of computer text:
> > 
> > 1. system applications that should just use the user default font size
> > -> have a setting where the user enters his preferred font, the
> > preferred  size for it in pt, and have apps obey it (with % sizes for
> > titles)
> > 
> > 2. documents produced by someone else, that may use different prefs
> > from the ones of the user
> > -> all the apps that manage those documents have a built-in zoom
> > system, and it's stupid to even try to correct all those with a
> > system-wide dpi kludge because every external document won't use the
> > same font sizes anyway and the correction will vary document per
> > document (you can try to automate "match to the system font size later
> > but it'd be a dynamic document-specific adjustment not a fixed fake
> > dpi value)
> > 
> > So "the thing you need to change for documents" is document-specific.
> 
> No, because everyone except desktop publishers deals in a standard,
> well-understood set of point sizes, which they expect to translate at
> about 96dpi, instead of maybe reallyreallytiny or LUDICROUSLY BIG.
I really don't understand this argument.  Surely this is only the case
because most people use 1024x768:
[ http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.html ]

Yes, that's right, most people set the resolution of their display to a
value lower than the display hw optimimum so that text (and image) sizes
are what they are accustomed to. Most(!) people work around the fact the
96dpi hack by adujsting the resolution!


> 
> > And it's different from "the thing you need to change for the desktop
> > gui" where you have *not* reason not to use pt size directly assuming
> > you kill all the dpi forcing kludges which have make it lose a
> > specific meaning on many systems.
> 
> I'd be more than happy for everything to be redesignated as 'size'
> rather than points, because as you say, it stops the conflation of the
> two use cases.  One use case involves people who just want to use their
> computer and have it behave as they expect.  The other involve people
> who get very upset when their computer behaves in a manner that's not
> completely in accordance with certain rigid principles.
I'm sorry, but computers *should* act in accordance with rigid priciples
otherwise what's the point?  That's why we have standards, no?

> 
> > > and 'thing which must match my physical
> > > properties exactly as I'm doing typesetting' (statistically, no-one
> > > cares about this).
> > 
> > Do you have any study that says users would not like this? They only
> > do not care because it's been broken so long (just as they didn't care
> > about AA text when the only thing available was pixelated bitmap
> > fonts).
> > 
> > > As long as the
> > > two
> > > are fundamentally in opposition,
> > 
> > They're only in fundamental opposition because some people insist in
> > abusing physical scaling to change font sizes instead of
> > (revolutionnary idea) just specifying different size defaults
> 
> Look, I'm happy that you care about this stuff.  Really, because we need
> more people to tell us that we're screwing up and going wrong.  But
> please trust me that real people don't feel that way.  They see 'size
> 12' (something readable), rather than '12pt' (however many inches).
> Nothing that exists today works at all with high-density displays -- the
> Nokia tablets still just always smash the DPI to 96 or so, because
> surprisingly you have NO ROOM ON YOUR SCREEN AT 220DPI BECAUSE
> EVERYTHING IS REALLY BIG AND JUST IMAGINE THIS BIT IS TAKING UP THIRTEEN
> LINES RATHER THAN JUST BEING IN CAPS.  It's ridiculous.
This just makes no sense.  If the true DPI is 220 on a decent size
screen, text at 12pt will be unreadable by most if the system DPI is
fixed to 96!  It will only give the expected (readable) result by either
setting a lower screen resolution or by using the true DPI to render the
text!




------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:51:29 +0300
From: Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org>
Subject: Re: Resolution indpendence
To: Steven J Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>
Cc: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org, Nicolas Mailhot
	<nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net>
Message-ID: <20080630185129.GD24418 at fooishbar.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:40:37PM +0100, Steven J Newbury wrote:
> I really don't understand this argument.  Surely this is only the case
> because most people use 1024x768:
> [ http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.html ]
> 
> Yes, that's right, most people set the resolution of their display to a
> value lower than the display hw optimimum so that text (and image) sizes
> are what they are accustomed to. Most(!) people work around the fact the
> 96dpi hack by adujsting the resolution!

Also because Windows is generally terrible at autodetecting these
things, but yes.

> I'm sorry, but computers *should* act in accordance with rigid priciples
> otherwise what's the point?  That's why we have standards, no?

Depends on whether the rigid principles are in opposition to general
expectations or not.

> This just makes no sense.  If the true DPI is 220 on a decent size
> screen, text at 12pt will be unreadable by most if the system DPI is
> fixed to 96!  It will only give the expected (readable) result by either
> setting a lower screen resolution or by using the true DPI to render the
> text!

Right, because all 220 DPI screens are usually viewed from long
distances, right? Except that the vast majority of higher-density
screens are used in mobile devices, hence my example of the
770/N800/N810 having forced the reported DPI to be artificially low.

Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/871b0850/attachment-0001.pgp 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:54:50 -0400
From: Adam Jackson <ajax at nwnk.net>
Subject: Further notes on 7.4
To: xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
Message-ID: <1214852090.24769.98.camel at localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain

We will not be doing the -X11R7.4- badging in tarball names anymore.  No
one I talked to could come up with any reason for still wanting this,
and it's busy work I don't feel like doing.  If you really still want
it, convince me.

I've updated the module list with my current understanding of what
modules are included and what versions people want in 7.4.  If you
haven't seen this file, you really should:

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/xorg/util/modular/tree/module-list.txt

While this list still includes most of the input drivers, be aware that
most of them are slated for the block, according to the input crew.  If
you're not evdev/kbd/mouse/vmmouse/void start justifying your existence.
In the same vein, I suspect XEvIE will either go away or be much changed
by 7.5.

Note that almost all of the graphics demos and core font utilities are
gone in that list.  Yes, this is intentional.  xeyes is not a critical
component of the modern desktop.  Run them if you want, but they're not
part of the core release anymore.

The core fonts are still listed there, but really, don't.  The only one
you want is font-misc-misc for fixed/cursor, expect the rest to leave
the list in 7.5.

- ajax



------------------------------

_______________________________________________
xorg mailing list
xorg at lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg

End of xorg Digest, Vol 35, Issue 122
*************************************