W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 07:29:54 +0800
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Rachel Nabors <rachelnabors@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20160308232954.GA15840@pescadero.dbaron.org>
Another possibility, working from the idea that steps(N, start/end)
is pretty broken and this is generally the desired way to do
multiple steps (i.e., not step-start and step-end which are a single
step) is that this function with equal steps could simply be:
  steps(N)
with no second argument at all.

-David

-- 
𝄞   L. David Baron                         http://dbaron.org/   𝄂
𝄢   Mozilla                          https://www.mozilla.org/   𝄂
             Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
             What I was walling in or walling out,
             And to whom I was like to give offense.
               - Robert Frost, Mending Wall (1914)

Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 23:30:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 8 March 2016 23:30:24 UTC