Hmm yeah; if I'm reading that colorjs.io table right, it seems to be saying `10.75%` would be the appropriate `r` component here, rather than the test's current `10.7906%` value. The test's current `10.7906%` value is here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/2ba7228309/css/css-color/lch-005.html#L10 That dates back to the original commit that added the test (though at that point, it was in a 2-decimal-places form, `10.79%`): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/245ccae909f72e7112b4109a0d0174b3efd8e46e#diff-36d950e261403eeb3f8528d5b0670b54be8585b53bf7893403b7a66d47168619R11 Normally I would think it was just a typo in that original commit, but it's interesting that the test was later amended to **add more precision** to that value (producing the current 4-digits-after-the-decimal-point expression). That later commit was here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/755a4a0285067505e47b516dfc7d74f4cdbb661a#diff-e9a5db8cd492903f0d844b5701722cd10d54a3585b1876cfa70420568b4ceef7R5 Chris, you're the original author here - can you confirm that `10.75%` is in fact the correct red component here, per Tiaan's link above? Or is the slightly-larger `10.7906%` (the value in the test) correct for some reason? (I wonder if there was some subtle change in the mapping at some point, or perhaps a change in precision in color-conversion tools, with older tools tripping over a lossy numerical conversion at some point?)
Bug 1824628 Comment 2 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
Hmm yeah; if I'm reading that colorjs.io table right, it seems to be saying `10.75%` would be the appropriate `r` component here, rather than the test's current `10.7906%` value. The test's current `10.7906%` value is here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/2ba7228309/css/css-color/lch-005.html#L10 That dates back to the original commit that added the test (though at that point, it was in a 2-decimal-places form, `10.79%`): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/245ccae909f72e7112b4109a0d0174b3efd8e46e#diff-36d950e261403eeb3f8528d5b0670b54be8585b53bf7893403b7a66d47168619R11 Normally I would think it was just a typo in that original commit, but it's interesting that the test was later amended to **add more precision** to that value (producing the current 4-digits-after-the-decimal-point expression). That later commit was here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/755a4a0285067505e47b516dfc7d74f4cdbb661a#diff-e9a5db8cd492903f0d844b5701722cd10d54a3585b1876cfa70420568b4ceef7R5 Chris, you're the original author here - can you confirm that `10.75%` would in fact be the correct red component here, per Tiaan's link above? Or is the slightly-larger `10.7906%` (the value in the test) correct for some reason? (I wonder if there was some subtle change in the mapping at some point, or perhaps a change in precision in color-conversion tools, with older tools tripping over a lossy numerical conversion at some point?)
Hmm yeah; if I'm reading that colorjs.io table right, it seems to be saying `10.75%` would be the appropriate `r` component here, rather than the test's current `10.7906%` value. The test's current `10.7906%` value is here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/2ba7228309/css/css-color/lch-005.html#L10 That dates back to the original commit that added the test (though at that point, it was in a 2-decimal-places form, `10.79%`): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/245ccae909f72e7112b4109a0d0174b3efd8e46e#diff-36d950e261403eeb3f8528d5b0670b54be8585b53bf7893403b7a66d47168619R11 Normally I would think it was just a typo in that original commit, but it's interesting that the test was later amended to **add more precision** to that value (producing the current 4-digits-after-the-decimal-point expression). That later commit was here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/755a4a0285067505e47b516dfc7d74f4cdbb661a#diff-e9a5db8cd492903f0d844b5701722cd10d54a3585b1876cfa70420568b4ceef7R5 Chris, you're the original author here - can you confirm that `10.75%` would in fact be the correct red component here, per Tiaan's link above? Or is the slightly-larger `10.7906%` (the value currently in the test) correct for some reason? (I wonder if there was some subtle change in the mapping at some point, or perhaps a change in precision in color-conversion tools, with older tools tripping over a lossy numerical conversion at some point?)
Hmm yeah; if I'm reading that colorjs.io table right, it seems to be saying `10.75%` would be the appropriate `r` component here, rather than the test's current `10.7906%` value. The test's current `10.7906%` value is here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/blob/2ba7228309/css/css-color/lch-005.html#L10 That dates back to the original commit that added the test (though at that point, it was in a 2-decimal-places form, `10.79%`): https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/245ccae909f72e7112b4109a0d0174b3efd8e46e#diff-36d950e261403eeb3f8528d5b0670b54be8585b53bf7893403b7a66d47168619R11 Normally I would think it was just a typo in that original commit, but it's interesting that the test was later amended to **add more precision** to that value (producing the current 4-digits-after-the-decimal-point expression). That later commit was here: https://github.com/web-platform-tests/wpt/commit/755a4a0285067505e47b516dfc7d74f4cdbb661a#diff-e9a5db8cd492903f0d844b5701722cd10d54a3585b1876cfa70420568b4ceef7R5 Chris, you're the original author here - can you confirm that `10.75%` would in fact be the correct red component here, per Tiaan's link above? Or is the slightly-larger `10.7906%` (the value currently in the test) correct for some reason? (I wonder if there was some subtle change in the mapping at some point, or perhaps a change in precision in color-conversion tools, with older tools tripping over a lossy numerical conversion at some point? Something like that might explain why we would've ended up with this [hypothetically] off-by-`0.04%` value here.