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

We had the "should we just reuse steps()?" discussion earlier, and decided not to do so, for precisely the reason Amelia gives - the two versions interpret the numeric argument substantially differently.  Using a brand new name reduces the confusion factor.

I'd like to stick with `frames()` here, as it invokes all the right intuitions - if you're animating a sprite sheet, it literally means frames, and even in the general animation case, instead of a smooth animation it's divided into N static frames.

While there is a little bit of semantic overlaap with `rAF()`, I don't think the two are close enough to be worried about.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-300028913 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 00:38:14 UTC