- From: Sebastian Zartner via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2017 23:02:59 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I still think it will be unfortunate to stick with `frames()` but if no one else feels likewise ... I do! > 'Steps' barely makes sense since people aren't graphing the timing function visually and will most likely never see it graphed! Graphing the timing functions is not the point here. It's that `steps()` simply sounds logical, because the transition makes several *steps* until it reaches its end value. In that sense `jumps()` would as well be ok. `frames()` also sounds fine for me in the context of timing functions. Though the earlier mentioned use case of reusing the timing functions in the context of color gradients (and by that making them "transition functions") is the real conflict here, because "frames" doesn't make much sense in a visual context. Therefore I agree with Brian, that the function should be renamed or its functionality be integrated into `steps()`. > But, my vote is still on keeping `frames()`, especially since it has already shipped! While it already got implemented in Blink and Gecko, as far as I can see, those implementations didn't reach stable releases yet, so it could still be changed. Sebastian -- GitHub Notification of comment by SebastianZ Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-310870854 using your GitHub account
Received on Saturday, 24 June 2017 23:03:05 UTC