W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > October to December 2010

Re: CSS SVG Discussion on Thursday

From: Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 07:21:14 +1300
Message-ID: <AANLkTimzuPVLX8CST=juAoW3kT891c7QW+sbpC+gSS9h@mail.gmail.com>
To: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com> wrote:

>  I posted the document that we could use as background or a launching
> point for our discussion on Thursday between the CSS and SVG working
> groups.   Perhaps it is useful.
>
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/WG/wiki/images/6/64/SVGCSSTPAC.pdf
>
>
Three of the four major browsers have partial or complete implementations of
SVG Animation 1.1 (SMIL). It's a solution that allows declarative animation
of vector images today. In Opera and Firefox (not sure about Webkit),
SMIL-animated SVG images are supported as <img> and CSS images. In the
browsers that support HTML5 parsing, SVG Animation is supported in an HTML
context. Quite a lof of demos and other content are using it on the Web.

You say that you don't think the Web should have two declarative animation
frameworks. But for the animated image use-case (including the advertising
niche currently served by Flash movies), I think CSS is inappropriate, since
the animation there is content, not style.

Given all that, personally I think we should keep SVG Animation and build on
it. We could diverge from the larger SMIL framework and simplify the model a
bit if we identify specific opportunities to do that.

Rob
-- 
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for
they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures
every day to see if what Paul said was true." [Acts 17:11]
Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:21:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 November 2010 18:21:43 GMT