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

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

From: Brian Birtles via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 01:01:34 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-300031936-1494291692-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Not sure if I follow, but we still need the `steps()` behavior too. For example, when you rotate an object 1 turn infinitely and you want to stagger the progress (e.g. a segmented spinner), you don't want `frames()` because you'll end up spending one portion of time at 0 degrees, and another portion of time at 360 degrees so you'll spending twice as long at that one position.

GitHub Notification of comment by birtles
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/1301#issuecomment-300031936 using your GitHub account
Received on Tuesday, 9 May 2017 01:01:46 UTC

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