1) as an animator discrete makes no sense at all to me. I don't even know where I'd begin explaining it to a student or a fellow animation wonk. Vote down. 2) stagger has a meaning closer to "sequence" with people using libraries like GSAP: http://greensock.com/stagger For clarity among the people who will want to use this API the most, I vote this down. 3) I'm in favor of pretending steps don't exist. 4) I encourage this conversation to happen with the animation community at slack.animationatwork.com 5) Otherwise and I light of #3 above, might I suggest chunk(x)? As often this behavior is described as "taking and animation and splitting it into even chunks" 6) oh hey, maybe split(x)... On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:46 PM Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 2016/03/09 8:59, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > If we think the back-compat isn't bad, tho, I do like this the best. > > We'd then get to add a "step" keyword, too, which is a shorthand for > > "steps(1)", and gives the default "non-animatable value" behavior. > > I couldn't work out how to search GitHub for this (since it just ignores > braces) but even just searching our Gecko repository I came up a few > instances of steps(N).[1] One in some codemirror styles and one in > Pocket styles. > > I'm not sure where next to look for data, but I suspect that this isn't > going to work out from a compatibility point of view. > > discrete() seems good to me unless we can find another way to make > steps() work. > > Brian > > [1] > > https://dxr.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/search?q=regexp%3A%22steps%5C(%5Cd%2B%5C)%22+ext%3Ahtml+ext%3Acss&redirect=false&case=true > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 08:41:25 UTC