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

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

From: Amelia Bellamy-Royds via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 08 May 2017 01:51:13 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-299753967-1494208271-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
What about `steps(2, equal)` ?  I think "two equal steps" is a fairly easy-to-understand description of what this timing function achieves.  It doesn't help clarify how its different from `steps(2, start)`, though.  Maybe `steps(2, full)` ?

But, my vote is still on keeping `frames()`, especially since it has already shipped!  That helps avoid confusion between the different ways of counting: `steps()` counts the number of times the value _changes_, `frames()` counts the number of different values.

The terminology could be reinforced with a new figure in the spec, showing the keyframes, the frames, and the steps as different parts of the timing function graph.

GitHub Notification of comment by AmeliaBR
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-299753967 using your GitHub account
Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 01:51:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:41:12 UTC