Re: [css-animations][web-animations] steps() timing function sometimes unintuitive

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.



Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 00:46:34 UTC