W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > July to September 2011

Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 21:16:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDBEHm2YYCJV8nKFXjw3fnFyF5x=s3QD5gzS4zQ8TG_a4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Cc: Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>, public-fx@w3.org
I don't really see the point of having CSS associated with a standalone SVG
file. It makes much more sense to do CSS if the SVG is inlined in your HTML.
Maybe the spec should be broken into these 2 use cases:
- stand-alone SVG files always use attributes.
- inline SVG always uses CSS styling

I think this will solve several issues. For instance, the problem on how to
integrate CSS transforms would go away.
Also, it will not break backward compatibility since there is very little
content out that is using this.

My proposal would make standalone SVG static since CSS animations won't
work.
I don't know how much of an issue that would be. (CSS animated SVG loaded
through the <img> tag will not likely support animation anyway.)

Rik

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Again, as I mentioned in my previous post, I think we can mandate CSS
> > support in a way that doesn't raise the barrier to entry too high by
> > providing an angle-bracket syntax for animations.
>
> Right; I don't necessarily have anything against providing a different
> syntax for the same functionality.  CSS parsing isn't very hard, but
> if it's even easier for many SVG-geared tools to produce or consume a
> syntax that looks like XML, so be it.
>
> ~TJ
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 04:17:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 August 2011 04:17:23 GMT