- From: Brad Kemper <brad.kemper@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 07:52:45 -0800
- To: Ambrose LI <ambrose.li@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Dec 13, 2010, at 11:39 PM, Ambrose LI wrote: > 2010/12/14 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>: >> That's true only in the simplistic worlds of OS/2, Mac and Windows. The >> ability to match display device to desktop configuration, resulting in >> accurate[1] absolute dimensions at the display surface, has been a part of >> X11 on Linux at least as far back as my experience with it goes, either by >> default, or as an option. A number of recent Linux distro releases assume 96 >> DPI, while others make no assumption, favoring accuracy, usually by using >> display dimensions and resolution provided by EDID to calculate DPI >> automatically and accurately[1]. In any event, not only is it possible for >> absolute units to be accurate on Linux, it's very common. > > I was in fact shocked to find that dimensions are not accurate on the > Mac. Besides Adobe software, even the system-provided Preview program > assumes that the OS knows correct physical dimensions (when in fact it > doesn't). It is very frustrating to have "actual size" artwork on the > screen shown at smaller than actual size, and IMHO this is a serious > bug (considering their target user base) that will only be corrected > later if not sooner. I've been using Macs since the 80s, and I don't recall "Actual Size" in any Mac program EVER being accurate. More of a cruel joke that you learn to ignore, really. Since they haven't fixed that by now, I have little confidence that it will ever be fixed.
Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2010 15:53:21 UTC