W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2010

Re: [transitions/animations] stepped timing function proposal

From: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:42:31 -0800
Message-id: <0C608205-9F5B-4398-893B-4F6C347340C8@apple.com>
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?

Received on Tuesday, 23 February 2010 23:43:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:13:43 UTC