W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2012

Re: [css3-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 10:46:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBhCse0OPphbWuxAFV94cxVnZQcJ5VZ2+s72ZpiieArFw@mail.gmail.com>
To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Rachel Nabors <rachelnabors@gmail.com>
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 2012-12-19 10:29 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
>> I propose another steps value: step-mid. It splits the animation curve
>> into n segments, makes the first n-1 do step-end behavior, and leaves
>> the last to just run normally.  The above example could instead be
>> written as "steps(4, step-mid)" and have this behavior:
>
> I like the idea, but I find the name confusing; it sounded like
> something that would give the first and last steps half the duration
> of the other steps.  (I also find the description quoted above
> confusing, but the rest of the email made it clear.)

I have absolutely no attachment to the name.  It was the first thing
that came to mind.

I assume that Rachel's suggestion comes from her association of
steps(n, end) with meaning "eat the end of the animation" (and
likewise for "start"), so "none" is reasonable in that sense.  I'm not
sure it makes sense if your understanding comes from the spec's
explanation, though, where "end" means "transitions all at once at the
end of the step".

Another possibility is just a new function.  I'm not sure what I'd
want to name it, though.

~TJ
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2012 18:46:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:21:03 GMT