Re: Apple's Proposal for CSS Animation

* David Hyatt wrote:
>We are concerned with animations that are presentational effects.   
>Describing presentational animations using declarative markup like  
>SMIL is inappropriate when the animations themselves are  
>presentational.

>If a page has multiple visual looks defined (using alternate  
>stylesheets), it should clearly be possible to have different  
>animation effects as part of each theme's presentation.  Markup or  
>script in the HTML file would make this difficult.

I am confused. Are you saying using markup is "inappropriate", or are
you saying embedding that markup in the document you are "styling" is
inappropriate? I would certainly disagree with the former, and either
way you are not answering my question (you could make a non-markup
syntax for SMIL, and you can put the SMIL code in separate documents,
using XInclude, XBL, some new markup language specifically for this
purpose, etc.)

>The syntax is identical to CSS3 multiple backgrounds (with all the  
>same rules for repeating patterns etc.).  You don't have to have  
>properties that are all the same length as the patterns intuitively  
>repeat into subsequent layers.  We've authored quite a few examples  
>and this has not been a point of confusion at all.  Besides, how else  
>would you list multiple animations on the same element if not in ...  
>well... a list? :)

The same criticism applies to multiple background images, and having
multiple animations in a list is not the same as specifying multiple
properties of multiple animations over multiple properties in lists.
As I said, it's the resulting matrix that is a concern, not a single
list.
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 20:23:28 UTC