- From: Boris Chiou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:32:44 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
BorisChiou has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts: == [css-easing] Should we include the infinity for output progress value? == The definition of output progress value in [[css-easing]](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-easing-2/#output-progress-value) includes the infinity: > The output progress value is a real number in the range [-∞, ∞]. However, there are some mismatched places in other specs: 1. the definition of iteration progress of [ComputedEffectTiming](https://drafts.csswg.org/web-animations-1/#dom-computedeffecttiming-progress) in [web-animations-1] uses `double` instead of `unrestricted double`. That means the progress doesn't include infinity or NaN. 2. the [interpolation section](https://drafts.csswg.org/css-values-4/#interpolation) in [css-values-4] says the range of progress from easing functions doesn't include infinity. Do I misread something? Or should we update the definition of output progress value and let it exclude infinity in [css-easing]? Or do we have to update other specs to match [css-easing]? IMO, I prefer letting [css-easing] restrict the range of output progress value from easing functions because it makes more sense to me, i.e. use `(-∞, ∞)`, instead of `[-∞, ∞]`. cc @birtles Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8344 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Friday, 20 January 2023 22:32:46 UTC