- From: Christoph Päper via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 07:54:20 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> if someone can provide a use-case that isn't solved equally well by using 1.6, I could change my position. I thought I did just that by pointing out the problem with unequal reciprocal values, e. g. a tall vs. a wide “Golden” rectangle. Authors can use approximations for sure, but they cannot rely on a *single* approximation to apply in all cases sufficiently. > It is completely reasonable to either inline a slightly more precise value here (1.618), or store a high-precision value for phi in a variable and use it in (…) calculations How is this work to be done – possibly introducing mistakes – by every single author more reasonable than making a predefined constant available to all authors? Your arguments against a predefined exact constant apparently are: - Approximations are always good enough. - Everyone can calculate it to arbitrary precision themselves. I think I have demonstrated that the first one is not true. The second one became true with recent additions to CSS, but it is counter to convenience, redundancy and error avoidance. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Crissov Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4702#issuecomment-660445869 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 18 July 2020 07:54:22 UTC