W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [transitions/animations] stepped timing function proposal

From: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 16:48:51 -0700
Cc: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <65F6DBC9-512C-4011-B7AC-61D32BB1D46F@apple.com>
To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Yes, but it would be a more natural way to express that two transitions run in the same interval, to use the same duration value;  and they'd also start and complete at the same time.

On Feb 23, 2010, at 16:42 , Chris Marrin wrote:

> 
> On Feb 23, 2010, at 2:42 PM, David Singer wrote:
> 
>> Something I have wondered about with my colleagues and reached no firm conclusion on is whether (using the same terminology as this message) we need a timing function step-start-end.  This would have the semantics
>> 
>> for N>1, a transition happens at T=0 and also at T=duration, and the others (if any) are equally spaced in the interval.
>> 
>> This has the two advantages (a) it's symmetric and (b) 'something happens' at the beginning and end of the period I set, rather than one end being offset from the period end.
>> (for N=1, the transition happens at t=(duration/2), probably, for completeness, though I doubt it's useful)
> 
> Isn't this the equivalent of adding 1 to N and adding duration/N to the duration (or something close to that)? In other words, can't the equivalent functionality be achieved with just step-start and step-end?

David Singer
Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 23:49:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:24 GMT