- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 15:59:01 -0800
- To: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>
- Cc: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, Rachel Nabors <rachelnabors@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 3:29 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > Another possibility, working from the idea that steps(N, start/end) > is pretty broken and this is generally the desired way to do > multiple steps (i.e., not step-start and step-end which are a single > step) is that this function with equal steps could simply be: > steps(N) > with no second argument at all. That has backwards-compatibility concerns - currently, if you omit the keyword it defaults to "end". Hmm. If we did do this, it'd mean we'd slightly reinterpret the N value - rather than indicating the number of segments, it would be the number of *discrete jumps*. They'd default to being equally spaced across the duration, and you can provide a keyword to optionally indicate that the first/last jump should instead occur at the start/end of the duration. (The start/end values aren't *terrible*, they're just not what people actually want in common cases.) 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. ~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 23:59:50 UTC