- From: CSS Meeting Bot via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:09:14 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
The CSS Working Group just discussed `Easing linear()`, and agreed to the following: * `RESOLVED: Publish css-easing-2 FPWD with linear() function` <details><summary>The full IRC log of that discussion</summary> <TabAtkins> Topic: Easing linear()<br> <dbaron> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7533<br> <TabAtkins> github: https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7533<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: There was a bunch of work to add linear(), spec was written by Jake a<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: End result was qite straightforward, it's a piecewise linear function<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: we have an impl in gecko<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: I just wanted to check whether the group is happy with design<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: I think it's a good compromise for th euse-cases it enables<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: So are we confident enough to ship it?<br> <iank_> is there a tag review for this feature?<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: Or ait?<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: birtles commented about the feature, says he's happy with it shipping<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <lea> q+<br> <fantasai> emilio: Anyone need more time to check it out?<br> <fantasai> scribe+ fantasai<br> <ChrisLilley> tag reviow would be good<br> <fantasai> Rossen_: TAG review for the feature?<br> <fantasai> emilio: I don't think so, but can file one<br> <Rossen_> ack lea<br> <fantasai> lea: I haven't looked at this before, what use cases does it address and how does it relate to linear keyword?<br> <fantasai> emilio: It's a compromise to allow more complex functions than we currently allow<br> <fantasai> emilio: you can approximate other functions<br> <fantasai> lea: complex path through linear segments?<br> <fantasai> emilio: yes, exactly<br> <fantasai> lea: I agree that's really useful!<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: Can approximate any easing function you want<br> <bramus> relevant demo that shows how it works: https://static-misc-3.glitch.me/linear-easing/4.html<br> <lea> q+<br> <fantasai> emilio: Compromise from adding a bunch of complex functions<br> <ChrisLilley> q+<br> <fantasai> lea: While very useful to approximate, there are many ways to interpolate, and linear is only one<br> <fantasai> lea: do we have any plans to add curved interpolation<br> <fantasai> lea: and if so, do we want to add a generic function instead of different functions by curve?<br> <dbaron> "the other one" !! :-)<br> <fremy> +1 to lea's point<br> <fantasai> emilio: perhaps. This all was discussed in issue 229<br> <fantasai> emilio: There's a follow-up issue, I'll paste link<br> <emilio> https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7508<br> <Rossen_> ack lea<br> <TabAtkins> all is linear, quadratic, and cubic. there are no other easings<br> <fantasai> emilio: I don't feel strongly about having a linear function vs generic<br> <astearns> (previous discussion in https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/229)<br> <fantasai> lea: I agree with having the functionality in CSS, just unsure about the design<br> <fantasai> emilio: Discussed bezier, complex spline, etc.<br> <fantasai> emilio: I personally don't care<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <fantasai> lea: If trying to approximate a curve, good to have a fallback<br> <bramus> (also see https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7508 which was spilt off from 229)<br> <fantasai> emilio: usual CSS fallback<br> <fantasai> lea: but painful<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: would still be painful<br> <astearns> (not sure interpolation fallback is something we should be designing around)<br> <ChrisLilley> q?<br> <fantasai> lea: Have a series of arguments that represent points, and if don't support the interpolation method, use the same points but different method<br> <fantasai> dbaron: If you add specific fallback rules that prevent authors from write their own custom fallback<br> <Rossen_> ack fantasai<br> <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to react to lea to respond<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: I think at some point we'll want a generic function that lets you interpolate differently<br> <dbaron> s/prevent/prevents/<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: but linear() as designed now is simple and straightforward, and adding more things to it isn't necessarily better<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: And some of th eother curves require more args than just the points.<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: This is just the list of points.<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: So even if we have a generic function, this is still useful on its own for author ease<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: Good thing about the P5 Linear is you can approximate anything with enough points<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: and you don't have off-curve points to add<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: Bad thing ist's always going to be discontinuous<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: If your points get animated, your piecewise thing falls apart<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: So another option, and I know I've brought it up before, is a thing called a ?????<br> <astearns> s/?????/catmull-rom/<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: which automatically produces a smooth curve through a set of point<br> <astearns> (sp)<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: I think this is objectively better<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: it's not just that linear is simple<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: but some things can't be produced with curves, e.g. step function<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: It's not a replacement, but in many cases it would be a better thing<br> <fantasai> TabAtkins: I agree it's the best simple way to get smoothness<br> <astearns> s/(sp)//<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <Rossen_> ack ChrisLilley<br> <fantasai> ChrisLilley: I want that on the record, so when ppl complain we didn't do it it's on the record :)<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: this spec doesn't have a fpwd<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: so i think before we decide to ship we shoud do that and get review<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: and tag review<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: so i think we shoudl publish fpwd, ask for review, then ask if it's ready to ship<br> <TabAtkins> emilio: sounds good<br> <Rossen_> ack fantasai<br> <Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to ask about FPWD<br> <Rossen_> ack dbaron<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: admin - i think when we resolve something's ready to ship, we need to file an issue against the snapshot with a link to the resolution<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: we have a history of resolving that things are shippable and not writing it down anywhere<br> <ChrisLilley> dbaron++<br> <astearns> +1<br> <ChrisLilley> qq+<br> <TabAtkins> dbaron: so i think one req should be an open issue against the snapshot<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: i think it should be *in* the snapshot, just edit it<br> <TabAtkins> ChrisLilley: do we have to wait for december to publish snapshots?<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: no<br> <TabAtkins> ChrisLilley: then we shoudl pub<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: anything else?<br> <Rossen_> q?<br> <Rossen_> ack ChrisLilley<br> <Zakim> ChrisLilley, you wanted to react to dbaron<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: So, objections to FPWD?<br> <TabAtkins> Rossen_: css-easing-2<br> <TabAtkins> RESOLVED: Publish css-easing-2 FPWD with linear() function<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: i suggest a res to publish the snapshot<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: and then once it's published at least once in a year, anyone can add to it and repub, not just the editor<br> <TabAtkins> florian: why not just publish a Note?<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: we'll update it thru th eyear, seems like it should be a draft...<br> <TabAtkins> florian: Doesn't need to be<br> <TabAtkins> fantasai: kinda indicates we're updating<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: prefer to just publish as a Note<br> <TabAtkins> astearns: Or else we'll forget<br> </details> -- GitHub Notification of comment by css-meeting-bot Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/7533#issuecomment-1201256907 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 1 August 2022 14:09:16 UTC