W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-svg-wg@w3.org > April to June 2011

Re: Summary of discussion about FX work items

From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 22:25:27 -0700
To: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
CC: SVG WG <public-svg-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CA20BF41.8B11%vhardy@adobe.com>


On 6/17/11 2:06 AM, "Cameron McCormack" <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

>Hi Vincent, thanks for restarting this discussion on the list.
>
>Vincent Hardy:
>> Animation.
>> 
>> The WG thinks that we should:
>> 
>> a. Coordinate with the CSS WG to make sure that both transitions and
>> animations can be made to work with SVG properties and attributes.
>> 
>> b. Work with the CSS in the FX task force on CSS Animations, in
>>particular
>> on issues such as keyFrames to try and have a consistent model.
>> 
>> c. Discuss the need for more timing and synchronization support as well
>>as
>> an animation API and decide if the FX task force is the right place to
>> have that work.
>
>I would like to have concrete preferences to take back to the CSS WG
>about what specifications should exist and where.  Just to clarify, it
>seems the above says:
>
>  * CSS Transitions remains in the CSS WG.  We will provide input on it
>    to ensure that transitions can traget SVG properties and attributes.
>
>  * CSS Animations moves to the FX TF.
>
>  * We might have a specification for defining timing, synchronisation
>    and script APIs in the future, but it is not yet decided where that
>    specification would live.  This specification would be referenced by
>    SVG 2.0 and whatever other CSS-syntax animation specifications
>    exist.
>
>Is that accurate?

Yes.
>
>Iım unsure that having Transitions remain a CSS-only specification while
>having Animations be a joint FX specification is the best way forward.
>It seems to me that either both or neither should be joint
>specifications.  Transitions defines things (timing functions, how to
>interpolate particular data types, which properties can be transitioned)
>that impact upon transitions being applicable to SVG content just as
>much as Animations does.  Even if we decide that SVG attributes cannot
>be transitioned, the definitions of timing functions etc. are reused in
>the CSS Animations spec.

Yes, I think that's a good point. I'd be happy to go that way and propose
that both CSS Transitions and CSS Animations are moved to the FX TF to
make them work and be consistent across and say the timing/sync/API work
is a need we recognize and will need, but are undecided as to where it
should happen.

Thanks,
Vincent
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 05:26:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 17 June 2011 05:26:04 GMT