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

Re: [css3-transitions] Back-tracking transition-timing-function

From: Alex Meiburg <timeroot.alex@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 19:20:20 -0700
Message-ID: <g2w736b692e1005051920pb77fde42n7adf600cb8e95898@mail.gmail.com>
To: Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org>, www-style@w3.org
Nice necro. ;-)

I thought about it, I suppose it wouldn't have to be invertible then, would
it? Only single-valued as it stands, but bounce animations shouldn't break
anything...

As was already meantioned, though, limiting the coordinates to the unit
square prevent and bouncing. It seems that one could have legitimate
functions, then, with the coordinates extended over the [0,1] range in the x
or y direction.

~6 out of 5 statisticians say that the number of statistics that either make
no sense or use ridiculous timescales at all has dropped over 164% in the
last 5.62474396842 years.

On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Erik Arvidsson <arv@chromium.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 17:29, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Within that range, you're guaranteed that the curve will be
>> monotonically increasing (or maybe just non-decreasing?), and thus is
>> invertible.
>
>
> Why is that a requirement? Removing the limitation allows bounce like
> animations without the need to switch to using keyframes.
>
> --
> erik
>
>
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2010 02:20:53 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:27 GMT