Maintain alternative pct: format for upscaling (^pct:)?

[mikeapp]

Issue
IIIF/api#1741

Pull Request
IIIF/api#1814
(line 236)

Preview
https://preview.iiif.io/api/1741_image_pct_n/api/image/3.0/#47-canonical-uri-syntax

Summary
Question of whether to maintain alternative upscaling form for pct:n. Keeping the ^pct:n form requires clients to be explicit that upscaling is intended and the status codes for the ^pct:n format allow a distinction between upscaling not supported and other syntax errors.

Resolution
Decision is to keep both forms and to clarify the status codes to be returned for a non-upscaling request that requires upscaling (e.g., pct:110), and a request for upscaling when upscaling is not supported (e.g., ^pct:110 sent to a server that does not support upscaling).

[azaroth42]

Issue 24 (Maintain alternative pct: format for upscaling (^pct:)?)

+1: 27 [Siani81 ahankinson aisaac andrewgunther awead azaroth42 beaudet dismorfo emulatingkat glenrobson hadro irv jbhoward-dublin jonhartzler joshuago78 jronallo jwd mattmcgrattan mcwhitaker mejackreed mikeapp mixterj regisrob scossu tomcrane tpendragon zimeon]
0: 2 [cubap jtweed]
-1: 0 []

Result: 27 / 29 = 0.93

Super majority is in favor, issue is approved