> 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? It's not, because *very few authors try to use the golden ratio in their work*. Because, of course, the "golden ratio is more harmonious/beautiful" is numerology nonsense, and it really is just "rectangles often look good when they have a roughly 3:2 ratio", and 1.6:1 is approximately that ratio. I'm saying that, *for the subset of authors* that do want to use the golden ratio in their work and want a highly accurate value, just using `1.618` is sufficient (it has an error of approximately 0.2% from the true value). That subset is very small to begin with, and I'd be willing to bet a good amount that nearly all of those people don't need a highly accurate value anyway, *as the GRT website, a design framework explicitly basically around the golden ratio, shows*, since they round their values to the nearest pixel and in many cases are less accurate than *1.6*. > Please, just get a WG resolution on this. Fine? -- GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4702#issuecomment-660684501 using your GitHub accountReceived on Sunday, 19 July 2020 18:04:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:11 UTC