- From: Adam Argyle via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2020 18:11:07 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
What do y'all think about a missing percentage meaning `auto`, which gives the algorithym the opportunity to distribute percentage equally. `50%` feels like my default preference when I mix 2 colors. like, unless i otherwise specify a specific amount to mix, please equally mix. That'd be `33.3%` for 3 colors, `25%` for 4, etc. Maybe it's not a scaling algorithm but a distribution solution instead? Something like: > missing percentages default to `auto`, which equally distributes remaining percentage. If all are `auto`, and there are 4 colors passed, `auto` is assigned `25%`. If 3 are `auto` and 1 is `40%`, `auto` is assigned `20%`. Furthermore, if 2 channels are competing for percentage ownership, like in this example mix `color-mix(color1 hue 100%, color2 hue 100%, color3)`, color1 and color2 would distribute `100%` amongst themselves as `50%`, leaving `color3` as `0%` since `auto` had no remaining space to claim. ^ thoughts on that? would mean one of the colors could own/steal a whole channel, since `100%` on only 1 color would leave nothing to distribute to the other colors (might be exactly what you wanted tho too). Also `color-mix(color1 hue 100%, color2 hue 100%)` and `color-mix(color1 hue auto, color2 hue auto)` and `color-mix(color1 hue 50%, color2 hue 50%)` result in the same color mix. **Another potential issue:** Makes me think we should figure out how to solve an overflow. `color-mix(color1 hue 120%, color 2)`, there's probably distribution logic in there that could be articulated as well. Or maybe that's solved somewhere and I can ramp up? -- GitHub Notification of comment by argyleink Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/5279#issuecomment-653151449 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 2 July 2020 18:11:09 UTC