Re: display-mm-width return value off on Windows

[David Kastrup]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 11:17:17 +0200
>> From: Lennart Borgman <address@hidden>
>> CC: Ralf Angeli <address@hidden>,  address@hidden, 
>>  address@hidden
>> 
>> Is it not clear from this discussions that the only way to surely get 
>> accurate sizes in this case is that the user specifies them?
>
> Most users will not specify that.  In fact, I'm sure many don't even
> know how to find out the values, or what parts of the display are
> affected by this.
>
> It's an obscure issue, so let's not try solving it hastily, which
> would perhaps be appropriate if it affected many users in some grave
> way.
>
> In other words, waiting a bit for user reports to come in doesn't
> sound like a bad thing to me.

For me, getting the actual dimensions correct are a secondary concern.
The most important concern is to be able to judge a font size in
pixels.  _That_ is important to get the relative sizes for
point-specified fonts and pixel-specified graphics into proper
relation.  The rest is icing on the cake.  If people want to have
geometrically correct 1:1 displays, they'll specify missing dimensions
if necessary.

But the display geometries are our only pointer to getting the
point/pixel relation coherent for fonts, so when in doubt, we should
rather err in the same manner Windows selects its fonts rather than
get it correct in opposition to all other applications and in
particular the font selection.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum