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

Maybe I'm just being dyslexic, but I'm having trouble matching up the
keywords with the graphs.

Do we have a list of updated graphics that we can put the new names under
them to get a feel of this?

I'd also agree with Brians' last email regarding keeping it in name to the
steps as the function name implies to avoid the dual context issue.

I think documentation and a little explanatory tool would help make it easy
for people to digest and make the connection in their heads with.
(My favourite is the self-aware border radius tool :)
https://s.codepen.io/zadvorsky/debug/mJQWzQ )

On Thu, 22 Jun 2017 at 06:17 Brian Birtles <notifications@github.com> wrote:

> 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).
>
> —
> You are receiving this because you commented.
> Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-310277916>,
> or mute the thread
> <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHPBA9SJgohoPdX-_06QKxB2YwSuxeVMks5sGfjwgaJpZM4NJwYI>
> .
>


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by Martin-Pitt
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-310357575 using your GitHub account

Received on Thursday, 22 June 2017 11:51:11 UTC