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

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

From: Tab Atkins Jr. via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 00:50:37 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-300030492-1494291036-sysbot+gh@w3.org>

It seems okay to me?

Like, I agree that `steps()` would have been better for this in the first place, but we done goofed that one up real bad.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by tabatkins
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-300030492 using your GitHub account

Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 00:50:45 UTC

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Brian Birtles via GitHub: "Re: [csswg-drafts] reconsider name of frames() timing function"
Previous message: Brian Birtles via GitHub: "Re: [csswg-drafts] reconsider name of frames() timing function"
Maybe in reply to: shans via GitHub: "Re: [csswg-drafts] reconsider name of frames() timing function"
Next in thread: Brian Birtles via GitHub: "Re: [csswg-drafts] reconsider name of frames() timing function"

Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]
Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
Help: [ How to use the archives ] [ Search in the archives ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 23 October 2017 10:12:53 UTC