as it should? why should it?Lowlander wrote:That would break rounding (and thus some Addons) as everything is rounded to half stars instead of as it should to the nearest star (as mipi suggests).
the Add-ons can change.
the point I am trying to make is that there should be only ONE value for full/whole stars, while all other values are gradients above or below a whole star value. (any gradient value would equal a fractional star, which in this case means a half star as that is the only fractional icon representation for display).
for an app that ONLY displays WHOLE stars, (which is almost all of them), it makes sense to map gradient values up or down. in this way, winamp e.g. can approximate what MM writes for half star values.
but for an app that displays FRACTIONAL stars, even if it's only halves, it makes sense for all gradient raw values to be represented by fractional stars. this is the only way for the user to know if their raw value number is a number that is not 1,64,128,196 or 255. to me, 4.5 IS everything from 197 to 254. and it lets me know that the number is not 196 or 255, but something inbetween.
why should any value under 255 = 5 stars anyway? what is the point of having raw values of 249 or 253 = 5 stars? why have gradient raw values = the same max whole 5 star display?
and finally consider that we are dealing with de facto standards and interoperability issues here. there are many many apps to consider! who is to say that all these apps would read the ranges the same way and have cutoffs at the same spots? hell, its only just now that 1,64,128,196 and 255 is becoming more or less universal, as MM did not use those itself!