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

Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:12:49 +0200
To: public-fx@w3.org
Message-Id: <201108021412.50182.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Hello,

I think, one has alway keep in mind, that
CSS provides only an additional styling/presentation and has
nothing to do with the content of a document.

Up to now I have only seen a few pages (well only in my
own photo gallery) using CSS for SVG to provide an 
alternative appearence of the document presentation.
Therefore I think, CSS syntax for SVG is not very important
in general.
Does anyone know SVG documents with only decorative
animations in it? At least the thousends of documents I
produced including animation and I think most from other
authors I have seen have no purely decorative animation in it, 
therefore for all of these documents CSS syntax for animation 
is practically useless. 

On the other hand - sure for something like huge text output
in XHTML, decorative animation can be an option. Users just
have to switch off CSS interpretation or to switch to an alternative
style to get the static alternative of the content.
If the animation is somehow important for the content, an
author should use declarative animation (SMIL timesheets) 
anyway for XHTML and no CSS.

To align the CSS syntax to the SMIL variant will simplify usage
and understandability of the CSS files. 
But some improvements for SVG taken from CSS can help as well -
especially to apply animations to classes of elements, not just
to single elements, if in a few cases an authors need this and
grouping with the element g is no option.


Olaf
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 12:13:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 August 2011 12:13:30 GMT