Re: Intent to implement: Frames timing functions

OK, sure. I will add a pref to protect it. Thanks for suggestion. On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 12:09 AM, wrote: > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:09:58 AM UTC-6, Boris Chiou wrote: > > *Preference behind which this will be implemented*: I'm not sure. I think > > we don't

Re: Intent to implement: Frames timing functions

On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:09 AM, wrote: > On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:09:58 AM UTC-6, Boris Chiou wrote: >> *Preference behind which this will be implemented*: I'm not sure. I think >> we don't need it because it is just a variant of the step timing function, >> and

Re: Intent to implement: Frames timing functions

On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 9:09:58 AM UTC-6, Boris Chiou wrote: > *Preference behind which this will be implemented*: I'm not sure. I think > we don't need it because it is just a variant of the step timing function, > and so it is safe to turn it on. If there is any other concerns, I can

Re: Intent to implement: Frames timing functions

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:35 AM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: > The linked bug suggests that Chrome implements this but this email suggests > it doesn't. What's the truth? There used to be a steps-middle timing function which is what the linked bug originally covered. Chrome

Re: Intent to implement: Frames timing functions

The linked bug suggests that Chrome implements this but this email suggests it doesn't. What's the truth? -Jeff On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:45 AM, Boris Chiou wrote: > *Summary*: > A frames timing function is a type of timing function that divides the > input time into a

Intent to implement: Frames timing functions

*Summary*: A frames timing function is a type of timing function that divides the input time into a specified number of intervals of equal length, each of which is associated with an output progress value of increasing value. The difference between a frames timing function and a step timing