W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2016

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

From: Rachel Nabors <rachelnabors@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:58:59 +0000
Message-ID: <CAPFA0t2Yv1MooYjz2Y4U4qE5u6Lr7y12E8cPRZo2Wb5J5+Lrzg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>, "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
I was in the discussion and also approve. Voting.

And I'd suggest frames(1) be a 50% value. Like frames(1) with blue and red
would be a purple value.
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 1:54 PM Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> nexii, in the WAAPI Slack, suggested frames(). I liked it when I heard it,
> and after thinking about it overnight, I like it even more.
>
> frames(N) translates directly - it means "split this animation into N
> frames".  The "frame" terminology is common enough that the metaphor should
> be readily understood.  The spelling is simple.  It automatically suggests
> that both the starting and ending values show up (they have to be in one of
> the "frames", after all).  It's a noun that is easy to talk about
> non-technically.
>
> (Obviously N must be 2 or greater. frames(1) would be invalid, same as
> steps(0). We *could* give frames(1) a meaning, but we'd have to decide
> whether it has step-start or step-end behavior, and that's better done by
> the step-start/end keywords already.)
>
> So I think I'm throwing all of my votes behind frames() as the name for
> this, and then we can mostly forget about steps().
>
> ~TJ
>
Received on Friday, 11 March 2016 19:59:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:01 UTC