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

1) as an animator discrete makes no sense at all to me. I don't even know
where I'd begin explaining it to a student or a fellow animation wonk. Vote

2) stagger has a meaning closer to "sequence" with people using libraries
like GSAP: For clarity among the people who
will want to use this API the most, I vote this down.

3) I'm in favor of pretending steps don't exist.

4) I encourage this conversation to happen with the animation community at

5) Otherwise and I light of #3 above, might I suggest chunk(x)? As often
this behavior is described as "taking and animation and splitting it into
even chunks"

6) oh hey, maybe split(x)...
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 4:46 PM Brian Birtles <> wrote:

> 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.
> Brian
> [1]

Received on Wednesday, 9 March 2016 08:41:27 UTC