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

Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2011 16:21:47 +1200
Message-ID: <4E377B5B.7080008@mcc.id.au>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
CC: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>, public-fx@w3.org
On 2/08/11 4:16 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> 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 don't think we want to do away with the <style> element in standalone 
SVG.  I find it useful, at least.

> I think this will solve several issues. For instance, the problem on how
> to integrate CSS transforms would go away.

Well, you would still need to define what <g style="transform: ..."> 
does.  Unless you wanted to drop the style="" attribute too.

I think dropping <style> from SVG makes as much sense as dropping it 
from HTML.

> 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.)

I would hope CSS Animations would work in this situation.
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 04:22:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 August 2011 04:22:33 GMT