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 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 10:12:53 UTC