W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > June 2017

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-timing] reconsider name of frames() timing function

From: Brian Birtles via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2017 05:17:33 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-310277916-1498108651-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
I suspect I'm forgetting something really obvious here but I wonder if maybe we should stop trying to be clever by having `frames(n)` where `n` is the number of frames. Maybe we should just let `n` continue to be the number of steps (i.e. changes in value) and add the `distribute` and `justify` keywords to describe how the steps are aligned within the interval (much like `start` and `end` do).

If we do that `frames(2)` would become `steps(1, distribute)`. Likewise, `frames(4)` would be `steps(3, distribute)`.

`steps(1, justify)` probably equals `steps(1, distribute)`.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by birtles
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-310277916 using your GitHub account
Received on Thursday, 22 June 2017 05:17:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 19 October 2021 01:30:34 UTC