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

Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

From: Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 19:02:42 +0200
Cc: public-fx@w3.org
Message-Id: <072B3A66-24F3-42DD-9611-667E9B79EE71@gmx.de>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
A bit off topic, sorry.
 
Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:

> Tab Atkins Jr.:
>>> 
>>> 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.)
>> 
> 
> This indicates as well, that it is currently only used for experimental
> purposes. Concerning WebKit SVG capabilities I found very interesting
> issues anyway (tested with different flavours of this program on the
> current Debian system) - from no interpretation of SVG at all to problems 
> with encoding of XML documents - I think, one of those browsers did not
> even display any HTML or plain text. These are fun toys, no browsers ;o) 
> This indicates as well, that projects related to WebKit are only experimental,
> not intended for normal users ;o)
You can not infer from experimental implementations (especially on linux), that WebKit is not doing its job correctly. You should use a nightly of WebKit based browsers like Safari or Chromium. SVG animation support improved a lot lately. And even will get better. Please read [1] for a detailed explanation about the different ports of WebKit and why they perform that different.

> I'm pretty sure, that some people get this browser run somehow,
> with a lot of efforts I can get something out of some of some of these 
> browsers as well (simplest one was the generic WebKit browser, but with
> a size of some Gigabyte typically nobody will install it), but normal
> users will not do this, therefore from my point of view, using this
> browser is experimental in general currently ;o)
Don't mixture browser engines and browsers. WebKit itself is a browser engine, and together with all internal tests, the source code is indeed 1GB or more. I don't believe that there is much difference to other browsers in that point. Normal users shouldn't download the source of a browser engine, but the complete browser.

> The behaviour for
> normal users is not predictable (or it is predictable, that it does not
> work without advanced experiments).
> For daily use there are for example Opera, Geckos, Konqueror 
> (KHTML, KSVG) or Amaya without having so many difficulties 
> as with WebKit browsers...
Again, don't use experimental applications but real browsers for comparisons.

Dirk

[1] http://ariya.blogspot.com/2011/06/your-webkit-port-is-special-just-like.html
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 17:03:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 3 August 2011 17:03:10 GMT