Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

2011/8/3 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>:
> Brian Birtles:
>>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.
>
> Because decorative CSS animation is just a draft currently and content
> animation with SMIL/SVG is specified and used for years, I think, we can
> safely assume, that there are only experimental decorative projects outside
> using CSS animation currently and a huge amount of content using
> SMIL/SVG.

This is an incorrect assumption.  CSS Transitions and Animations are
used quite a lot on the web currently, even though they were, until
recently, only supported in WebKit.  (It helps that Transitions, in
particular, degrades really well.)


> And currently the CSS model is too simple to cover all the use cases
> SMIL/SVG covers, therefore even if converted to XML syntax it will often
> be no alternative. For a few use cases however SMIL/SVG has no
> practical answer.
> The simple solution is to improve SMIL/SVG animation in a backwards
> compatible way. After this is done, one surely can find a solution like
> the current CSS syntax (or a more simple, usable approach) or something like
> the timesheets approach to integrate SMIL/SVG animations for decorative
> purposes in CSS as well.

The intention is to broaden the abilities of CSS Transitions and
Animations based on use-cases, and additionally develop a strong
Animation API for Javascript that hooks into the same UA machinery and
lets authors address the more complex functionality (like
synchronization of separate animations) more easily.

~TJ

Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 16:08:55 UTC