Hi, On 27 November 2013 20:08, Bill Spitzak <[email protected]> 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. Cheers, Daniel _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
