Should explicit upscale (^) be required for pct:nnn?

[tomcrane]

In the current draft, any upscaling operation must be indicated by a "^" (caret) in the size parameter.

For percentage size operations, this is technically redundant: pct:200 and ^pct:200 can only mean the same thing.

Which is better? Be consistent, so that upscaling is always indicated by a caret?
Or not require it on pct, as it is redundant?

[tomcrane]

(From Edinburgh meeting 2018-12-05)

[azaroth42]

My preference is not to make any change but to note the weirdness explicitly in the spec. e.g. editorial issue to explain why pct:101 is invalid and you need to use ^pct:101. ^pct:99 isn't invalid, it's just pointless.

[zimeon]

Agreed but I'd add that pct:99 is canonical, ^pct:99 isn't.

[jpstroop]

Or we could just stop supporting pct: 😈

[azaroth42]

@mikeapp: By leaving ^ in, you can distinguish between don't implement upscaling (501) and bad request for upscaling (400)

[azaroth42]

Editors agree -- clarification about the usage of ^ and pct, no actual normative change.