tex-live Digest, Vol 207, Issue 24
Smith, Henry
h.smith at northeastern.edu
Thu Apr 9 18:23:10 CEST 2020
Sorry for the noise - replied to wrong e-mail...
On 4/9/20, 12:19 PM, "Smith, Henry" <h.smith at northeastern.edu> wrote:
Ooops, Yes you are right. It has an extra factor of "g" in it that should have been canceled out. We found it yesterday and I had thought it was fixed but it looks like the fixer didn't get to it.
To get the answer it expects you can just multiply yours by g and it should mark it right.
Likely we will give full credit for that part since this happened.
Prof Smith
On 4/9/20, 12:00 PM, "tex-live on behalf of tex-live-request at tug.org" <tex-live-bounces+h.smith=neu.edu at tug.org on behalf of tex-live-request at tug.org> wrote:
Send tex-live mailing list submissions to
tex-live at tug.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftex-live&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191403912&sdata=QaTHpIWVBZj9u1dizd6w6AY2PueJgR%2FGQzLb7SVMLN4%3D&reserved=0
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
tex-live-request at tug.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
tex-live-owner at tug.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of tex-live digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis (Jim Diamond)
2. Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis (Jim Diamond)
3. Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis (Philip Taylor)
4. Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis (Zdenek Wagner)
5. Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis (Jim Diamond)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 11:11:09 -0300
From: Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond at acadiau.ca>
To: Norbert Preining <norbert at preining.info>
Cc: tex-live at tug.org
Subject: Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis
Message-ID: <20200409141109.GC7392 at jdiamond-mb.acadiau.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Norbert,
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 11:51 (+0900), Norbert Preining wrote:
> CAUTION: This email comes from outside Acadia. Verify the sender and use caution with any requests, links or attachments.
> Hi Jim,
>>> You can fix it *probably* by doing
>>> GDK_SCALE=2 tlcockpit
>> Thanks for the suggestion. However, as it turns out, I already have
>> GDK_SCALE=2 in my environment.
> That is strange... but not completely unexpected.
Funny how those two things can go together :-)
> Which Java Version do you have installed?
java version "1.8.0_152"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_152-b16)
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.152-b16, mixed mode)
(Running on Slackware64 14.2.)
Cheers.
Jim
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 11:13:57 -0300
From: Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond at acadiau.ca>
To: Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wagner at gmail.com>
Cc: Norbert Preining <norbert at preining.info>, TeX Live
<tex-live at tug.org>
Subject: Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis
Message-ID: <20200409141357.GD7392 at jdiamond-mb.acadiau.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Hi Zdenek,
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 08:25 (+0200), Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> I do not have TL 2020 so far, I have just tried tlcockpit from TL 2019. It says:
> Running on Java Version 1.8.0_131
> I do not have GDK_SCALE set. In fact, I run KDE Plasma. I do not have
> Gnome, I only have the GTK libraries installed because gimp and a few
> other apps need them. I see the fonts in a reasonable size. It can
> depend on setting the resolution of the screen. I have a correct
> setting in my system.
"Correct" setting seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
I think "correct" means "if the screen is physically X DPI, then X
should report X". Other people seem to think "correct" means "96,
regardless of what reality is".
I consider the latter to be a horrible kludge which has become popular
because it is expedient, but YMMV.
Cheers.
Jim
> ?t 9. 4. 2020 v 4:51 odes?latel Norbert Preining <norbert at preining.info> napsal:
>> Hi Jim,
>>> > You can fix it *probably* by doing
>>> > GDK_SCALE=2 tlcockpit
>>> Thanks for the suggestion. However, as it turns out, I already have
>>> GDK_SCALE=2 in my environment.
>> That is strange... but not completely unexpected.
>> Which Java Version do you have installed?
>> Norbert
>> --
>> PREINING Norbert https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.preining.info%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191403912&sdata=L926NK3G%2BCpOEa2ZcjSmjJUZN%2FI2lcQeMnsll%2B6s0%2FY%3D&reserved=0
>> Accelia Inc. + IFMGA ProGuide + TU Wien + JAIST + TeX Live + Debian Dev
>> GPG: 0x860CDC13 fp: F7D8 A928 26E3 16A1 9FA0 ACF0 6CAC A448 860C DC13
--
Dr. Jim Diamond "Convenio ergo sum" | /"\
Jodrey School of Computer Science | ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ /
Acadia University, Wolfville NS Canada B4P 2R6 | https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Farc.pasp.de%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191413901&sdata=RYSQjnxitkQrX%2F0KsLR18ODN%2FEpzfdxNEnkJVGXdN4g%3D&reserved=0 x
Voice: (902) 585-1402 Fax: (902) 585-1067 | / \
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 15:21:46 +0100
From: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor at Hellenic-Institute.Uk>
To: Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond at acadiau.ca>
Cc: TeX Live <tex-live at tug.org>, Norbert Preining
<norbert at preining.info>
Subject: Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis
Message-ID:
<178e02c3-619a-095f-901a-283ffec30b46 at Hellenic-Institute.Uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Jim Diamond via tex-live wrote:
> I think "correct" means "if the screen is physically X DPI, then Xshould report X".
> Other people seem to think "correct" means "96, regardless of what reality is".
>
> I consider the latter to be a horrible kludge which has become popular
> because it is expedient, but YMMV.
Blame not the kludgers, Jim, blame the CSS Working Group who defined the CSS reference pixel to be the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a pixel density of 96 DPI and a distance from the reader of an arm?s length. (for the British Standard Arm, clearly: see BS 31415 (1899), as amended).
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhacks.mozilla.org%2F2013%2F09%2Fcss-length-explained%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191413901&sdata=jU5ErIDmaVSPLlJbuw%2FQJ6sDVuCsLnbDN9n41EaCG3c%3D&reserved=0
/Philip Taylor/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftug.org%2Fpipermail%2Ftex-live%2Fattachments%2F20200409%2Fc7b143eb%2Fattachment-0001.html&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191413901&sdata=uFMjR2tSEUcG9Mce8TyTZYxWdTTATXfTkRbRc4O3%2B6I%3D&reserved=0>
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 17:37:58 +0200
From: Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wagner at gmail.com>
To: Philip Taylor <P.Taylor at hellenic-institute.uk>
Cc: Norbert Preining <norbert at preining.info>, TeX Live
<tex-live at tug.org>
Subject: Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis
Message-ID:
<CAC1phyYqJS3c3VwQSQnz7vUxA10Ajn6Qfty_ktxEjkx9W56SZQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
?t 9. 4. 2020 v 16:21 odes?latel Philip Taylor
<P.Taylor at hellenic-institute.uk> napsal:
>
> Jim Diamond via tex-live wrote:
>
> I think "correct" means "if the screen is physically X DPI, then Xshould report X".
> Other people seem to think "correct" means "96, regardless of what reality is".
>
> I consider the latter to be a horrible kludge which has become popular
> because it is expedient, but YMMV.
>
>
> Blame not the kludgers, Jim, blame the CSS Working Group who defined the CSS reference pixel to be the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a pixel density of 96 DPI and a distance from the reader of an arm?s length. (for the British Standard Arm, clearly: see BS 31415 (1899), as amended).
>
Yes, CSS using pixels (no matter whether based on 96 or even older 72)
is wrong. When setting the properties of my monitor I took its size in
pixels and inches and calculated the resolution. Java apparently takes
the value from my system settings and font size is defined in
tlcockpit in typographical units, not in pixels, but Tk uses its own
strange value.
> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhacks.mozilla.org%2F2013%2F09%2Fcss-length-explained%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191413901&sdata=jU5ErIDmaVSPLlJbuw%2FQJ6sDVuCsLnbDN9n41EaCG3c%3D&reserved=0
>
>
> Philip Taylor
>
Zden?k Wagner
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fttsm.icpf.cas.cz%2Fteam%2Fwagner.shtml&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191413901&sdata=WEt00eTLXxSgmE5q3d1txprsAFiCw8hNzP%2BJaNOgb%2BY%3D&reserved=0
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ficebearsoft.euweb.cz%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191413901&sdata=H6JAJpayxrW8qnhG9920sp6wsAe3oD3724kNoHCe57w%3D&reserved=0
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2020 12:57:40 -0300
From: Jim Diamond <Jim.Diamond at acadiau.ca>
To: Zdenek Wagner <zdenek.wagner at gmail.com>
Cc: Norbert Preining <norbert at preining.info>, TeX Live
<tex-live at tug.org>
Subject: Re: microscopic fonts in TL guis
Message-ID: <20200409155740.GA16768 at jdiamond-mb.acadiau.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 17:37 (+0200), Zdenek Wagner wrote:
> ?t 9. 4. 2020 v 16:21 odes?latel Philip Taylor
> <P.Taylor at hellenic-institute.uk> napsal:
>> Jim Diamond via tex-live wrote:
>> I think "correct" means "if the screen is physically X DPI, then Xshould report X".
>> Other people seem to think "correct" means "96, regardless of what reality is".
>> I consider the latter to be a horrible kludge which has become popular
>> because it is expedient, but YMMV.
>> Blame not the kludgers, Jim, blame the CSS Working Group who defined the CSS reference pixel to be the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a pixel density of 96 DPI and a distance from the reader of an arm?s length. (for the British Standard Arm, clearly: see BS 31415 (1899), as amended).
> Yes, CSS using pixels (no matter whether based on 96 or even older 72)
> is wrong. When setting the properties of my monitor I took its size in
> pixels and inches and calculated the resolution. Java apparently takes
> the value from my system settings and font size is defined in
> tlcockpit in typographical units, not in pixels, but Tk uses its own
> strange value.
>> https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fhacks.mozilla.org%2F2013%2F09%2Fcss-length-explained%2F&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191413901&sdata=jU5ErIDmaVSPLlJbuw%2FQJ6sDVuCsLnbDN9n41EaCG3c%3D&reserved=0
Philip, thanks for the link.
This statement "a CSS pixel will be displayed in different physical
dimensions but it will always be displayed in the correct size in
which the viewer will find comfortable." reminds me of the Olympic
champion level of pretentiousness as found in a book on UI design by
Apple I read a long time ago. (Apple's viewpoint, at least at the
time, was essentially "we are right, anyone who disagrees is clearly
wrong".) What a pile of rubbish.
Displaying things at a comfortable size for people to read is a
laudable goal. Refining what an inch is, not so much. This strikes
me as a poor solution to avoid harder thinking.
Having said that, CSS applies to web browsers, but what Java GUIs are
doing has always been something of a mystery to me.
I've been working on a QT5 app on and off for the last few months.
The Qt people have added fuel to the fire by displaying things
differently on different OSes. Thus trying to develop some code which
works well on Linux, macos and MSWindows adds an extra level of
frustration.
Cheers.
Jim
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
tex-live mailing list
tex-live at tug.org
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftug.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Ftex-live&data=02%7C01%7Ch.smith%40northeastern.edu%7C91f7a1b1b24946d5a69008d7dc9f18a7%7Ca8eec281aaa34daeac9b9a398b9215e7%7C0%7C0%7C637220448191413901&sdata=lPyfdYipRv7dxpakzXkbOtrZnftDDG4WO5RH1t%2BnsQs%3D&reserved=0
------------------------------
End of tex-live Digest, Vol 207, Issue 24
*****************************************
More information about the tex-live
mailing list.