- From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:42:31 -0800
- To: "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>
On Feb 23, 2010, at 2:42 PM, David Singer wrote: > Something I have wondered about with my colleagues and reached no firm conclusion on is whether (using the same terminology as this message) we need a timing function step-start-end. This would have the semantics > > for N>1, a transition happens at T=0 and also at T=duration, and the others (if any) are equally spaced in the interval. > > This has the two advantages (a) it's symmetric and (b) 'something happens' at the beginning and end of the period I set, rather than one end being offset from the period end. > (for N=1, the transition happens at t=(duration/2), probably, for completeness, though I doubt it's useful) Isn't this the equivalent of adding 1 to N and adding duration/N to the duration (or something close to that)? In other words, can't the equivalent functionality be achieved with just step-start and step-end? ----- ~Chris cmarrin@apple.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 23:43:04 UTC