On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Stefan Seefeld wrote:
> > O.K. - what do you need to know ?
>
> our ultimate goal is 'resolution independence'. Before we were all brainwashed,
> setting the resolution meant to specify how many pixels fit in a given physical
> length. The size of graphical objects was *not* touched.
> In berlin, we specify graphical object sizes in physical units (mm for example),
> and let the DrawingKit (the renderer) figure out what that means in terms of
> pixels. The DrawingKit therefor needs to know either the resolution or the physical
> size of a pixel. This is currently not possible without manual intervention, as
> the visual's size isn't set. If it was set, and would indeed represent the physical
> dimensions of the visual, we'd know the resolution immediately. Of course, this
> matters most if a visual represents the whole screen (as it does usually in berlin).
> We have for example another DrawingKit for printing (a 'PSDrawingKit'). It will
> know (through configuration) what the resolution of the printer is, and then adapt
> to print the scene in the exact same size as it would appear with the screen
>DrawingKit.
> WYSIWYG at its best.
I think with video cards calibration is inevitable. IMHO I can definitely see
physical size as a property of a visual.This could simply be a struct in the
ggi_visual_t that can set set or get (GC?) whose value defaults to 96 dpi if
not explicitely set.
--
Lee Brown Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
