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

Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 08:06:06 -0700
To: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com>, Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
CC: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, "'www-svg'" <www-svg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA5EB10C.E6B0%vhardy@adobe.com>
I also thought we had resolved, during the FX meeting last week, to work on requirements first. However, looking at the minutes log, I cannot find any RESOLUTION or ACTION recorded on that.


It seems that the log is truncated at midnight, and I do not see the following part at:



From: Patrick Dengler <patd@microsoft.com<mailto:patd@microsoft.com>>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 07:50:28 -0700
To: Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com<mailto:birtles@gmail.com>>, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net<mailto:ddailey@zoominternet.net>>
Cc: "public-fx@w3.org<mailto:public-fx@w3.org>" <public-fx@w3.org<mailto:public-fx@w3.org>>, 'www-svg' <www-svg@w3.org<mailto:www-svg@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

This was indeed what we agreed upon last year in Lyon at TPAC.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-fx-request@w3.org<mailto:public-fx-request@w3.org> [mailto:public-fx-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Brian Birtles
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 4:55 PM
To: David Dailey
Cc: public-fx@w3.org<mailto:public-fx@w3.org>; 'www-svg'
Subject: Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

Hi David,

Thanks very much for your feedback here.

I just want to clarify a couple of things in defense of those who suggested dropping SMIL:

a) No one's proposing dropping declarative animation altogether. Rather, the option that many seemed to prefer was replacing SMIL with CSS Animation.

b) Everyone recognises that the folks who developed SMIL know their domain best. Everyone wants to build on that experience even if they don't use SMIL syntax per se.

The real concern is that currently we have two competing models for animation which is not a good state of affairs for the Web platform.
Myself and others have been considering how to harmonise the two models but some implementors expressed concern about investing time in implementing SMIL when CSS Animations already appears to have wider adoption.

Regarding the last point about adoption however, we're mostly just guessing, I don't think anyone really has hard data on this. Also, it was recognised that there's a lot more HTML on the Web than SVG so it's not really a fair comparison.

I believe Dean Jackson is going to look into what is required to bring CSS Animations up to feature parity before any resolution is made about how we go forward.

I think it would also be useful to draw up a concrete proposal about how to merge the two models into one. It is something I would like to do but may not have the opportunity (although I made a start [1]).

Thanks again,


Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 15:06:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:46 UTC