Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 7, 2018. It is now read-only.

Initial attempt at supporting negative infinity start delay (issue #48) #87

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

birtles
Copy link
Contributor

@birtles birtles commented Apr 3, 2015

@shans @dstockwell @tabatkins I had a go at supporting negative infinity start delay as discussed last October (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-fx/2014OctDec/0011.html)

What do you think? It's a fairly big change and I'm not sure it's entirely correct. Do you think it's worth the change?

(There's one minor unrelated change I made at the same time relating to making the time fraction equal the fraction part of the "iteration start" when the iteration duration is infinity. If we don't land this I'll probably still land that part.)

@birtles
Copy link
Contributor Author

birtles commented Apr 22, 2015

Ping @shans and @tabatkins ? I think you guys were the ones who wanted this change.

@@ -2582,6 +2617,8 @@ <h5 id="calculating-the-scaled-active-time">Calculating the scaled active time</
&times; <a lt="animation effect playback rate">playback
rate</a> + <a>start offset</a></code>.

If <a>active time</a> is positive infinity and <a>active duration</a>

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks like a sentence fragment. Is there meant to be more, or is this meant to be another dt for the following dl?

@birtles
Copy link
Contributor Author

birtles commented May 7, 2015

Thanks, that's helpful. I'm particularly interested, however, in whether you think this change is worthwhile, i.e. whether the complexity is warranted.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants