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