- From: Rachel Nabors <rachelnabors@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2016 22:24:32 +0000
- To: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPFA0t34A4PVehbkTB9Q76RFzyGAfuOMgFaF85M0DhuO8mU6pA@mail.gmail.com>
I was thinking of "steps(5, equal)" when discussing this syntax, as an expansion of the steps() formula. I think it looks sensible, if that's possible? On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:00 PM Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com> wrote: > On 2012/12/21 3:46, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> > wrote: > >> On Wednesday 2012-12-19 10:29 -0800, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote: > >>> I propose another steps value: step-mid. It splits the animation curve > >>> into n segments, makes the first n-1 do step-end behavior, and leaves > >>> the last to just run normally. The above example could instead be > >>> written as "steps(4, step-mid)" and have this behavior: > >> > >> I like the idea, but I find the name confusing; it sounded like > >> something that would give the first and last steps half the duration > >> of the other steps. (I also find the description quoted above > >> confusing, but the rest of the email made it clear.) > > > > I have absolutely no attachment to the name. It was the first thing > > that came to mind. > > > > I assume that Rachel's suggestion comes from her association of > > steps(n, end) with meaning "eat the end of the animation" (and > > likewise for "start"), so "none" is reasonable in that sense. I'm not > > sure it makes sense if your understanding comes from the spec's > > explanation, though, where "end" means "transitions all at once at the > > end of the step". > > > > Another possibility is just a new function. I'm not sure what I'd > > want to name it, though. > > I spoke with Rachel and a few others about this recently and we were > wondering about the name step-equal? Unfortunately, that doesn't > translate into a function very well ('step-equal(2)'? Alternatively, > what about 'step-stagger' and 'stagger(5)', or just the function?). > > I'd like to settle on this soon because Chrome is shipping > Element.animate() with support for 'step-middle' as defined by Web > Animations.[1] We went to implement this in Firefox[2] but I'm concerned > that there aren't use cases for step-middle as currently specced and > instead what we want is what Tab originally proposed in this thread. > > Assuming usage is low in Chrome, I'd like to drop step-middle from Web > Animations and replace it with this revised timing function. > > Best regards, > > Brian > > [1] http://w3c.github.io/web-animations/#typedef-step-timing-function > I didn't realize Chrome had implemented this, or else I would have > brought this up sooner. > [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1248340 >
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 22:25:15 UTC