- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 18:45:19 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I suspect if negative percentages are allowed, they will be used in small tweaks, i.e. "make this a little less blue", not with huge changes like -90%, so that's a red herring. There are numerous combinations of existing CSS with extreme values that produces weird results, as I'm sure you're aware. Anyway, this disagreement is starting to be non-productive, so let's step back for a moment. There have been arguments expressed that allowing negative percentages is *more* consistent with the rest of CSS (due to transitions), and arguments that it's *less* consistent with the rest of CSS (due to largely unimplemented `cross-fade()`). Since there's conflicting precedent here, we cannot use internal consistency to guide us to make a decision. In terms of intuitiveness, some participants (me, @svgeesus, @facelessuser) think handling negative percentages as extrapolation along the same line produces reasonable/useful results, and some (@tabatkins, @una) think it's unintuitive. What is the downside of allowing it? Authors who think it's unintuitive can just *not use it*, just like they have not been using color transitions out of 0-100%. We are not discussing two alternatives here, one of which is more intuitive than the other, we're discussing doing *something* vs doing *nothing*. Those who would prefer negative percentages to do nothing, can still simply …not use negative percentages. -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6047#issuecomment-796959331 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 11 March 2021 18:45:21 UTC