scary... my experience is that the more platforms try to get this kind of thing right, the more they get it wrong.
back in the 90's, photoshop would try to do all sorts of gamma correction on images you were editing with the consequence that, if you didn't turn it off and make sure it was always turned off, you'd get your colors wrong 100% of the time.
a system like that working requires that all the pieces be correctly configured, and the consequence is that instead of having something that's 4.1 inches on one platform and 5.2 on another, you have something that's 12.7 inches on one platform and 1.4 on another.
but my monitor does not have the real DPI the label on it's back says... configuring by DPI is moot.
i read a little more on the link you provided... and the closest to the gimp old way of doing that is putting the width and height of the viable area of the monitor in mm. think that might work rather well if it's correctly implemented.
I wasn't suggesting reading a label. One measures the visible picture in real life, e.g. ruler, and calculates the DPI. CRTs didn't have a label on the back and, anyway, one could adjust the picture size.
back in the 90's, photoshop would try to do all sorts of gamma correction on images you were editing with the consequence that, if you didn't turn it off and make sure it was always turned off, you'd get your colors wrong 100% of the time.
a system like that working requires that all the pieces be correctly configured, and the consequence is that instead of having something that's 4.1 inches on one platform and 5.2 on another, you have something that's 12.7 inches on one platform and 1.4 on another.