- From: Lukas Waslowski via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2025 14:04:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
cr7pt0gr4ph7 has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-values-5] Inconsistent argument order between `clamp()` and `mix()`/`progress()` == The argument order for the newly proposed `progress()` / `mix()` functions differs from that of the already existing `clamp()` function: ```css /* Source: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values/#comp-func */ clamp(<min>, <value>, <max>) /* Source: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-5/#mix (arguments renamed for claritity) */ mix(<value>, <min>, <max>) mix(<value> of <keyframes-name>) /* Source: https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-5/#progress-func (arguments renamed for claritity) */ progress(<progress>, <min>, <max>) ``` This is a potential source of confusion of stylesheet authors. There are good arguments either way (`progress(<min>, <value>, <max>)` would be consistent with `clamp(<min>, <value>, <max>)`, while `progress(<value>, <min>, <max>)` would be more symmetric with `progress(<value> of <keyframes-name>)`. It would probably make sense to include a note about the inconsistency as well as the rationale for the choice made in the spec to remove some avoidable confusion. Possibly related: #10489 Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11427 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Thursday, 2 January 2025 14:04:31 UTC