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

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

From: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 09:46:00 +0900
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Rachel Nabors <rachelnabors@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Message-ID: <56DF7248.7010307@mozilla.com>
On 2016/03/09 8:59, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> If we think the back-compat isn't bad, tho, I do like this the best.
> We'd then get to add a "step" keyword, too, which is a shorthand for
> "steps(1)", and gives the default "non-animatable value" behavior.

I couldn't work out how to search GitHub for this (since it just ignores 
braces) but even just searching our Gecko repository I came up a few 
instances of steps(N).[1] One in some codemirror styles and one in 
Pocket styles.

I'm not sure where next to look for data, but I suspect that this isn't 
going to work out from a compatibility point of view.

discrete() seems good to me unless we can find another way to make 
steps() work.

Brian

[1] 
https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?q=regexp%3A%22steps%5C(%5Cd%2B%5C)%22+ext%3Ahtml+ext%3Acss&redirect=false&case=true
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 00:46:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 9 March 2016 00:46:34 UTC