W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > March 2011

Re: Using CSS Transitions/Animations with SVG attributes

From: Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 12:28:24 -0400
Message-ID: <4D838828.8070004@mit.edu>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
On 3/18/11 12:13 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> The biggest problem with SMIL is that it's not CSS.  ^_^  It's a
> different animation model that's only applicable to SVG (plus maybe
> other languages that aren't really part of the web).  It won't ever be
> applicable to HTML.  CSS Transitions/Animations are already usable
> across HTML, and on the handful of SVG attributes that are currently
> mapped to properties (the list of which is pretty arbitrary).  It
> appears that CSS T/A is the most reasonable way forward if we want a
> single animation model for the web (which seems like a desirable
> goal).

It's a desirable goal if the resulting model is sane. If you have to 
come up with a franken-model of some sort to do it, because you're 
animating totally different things conceptually but trying to shoehorn 
them into the same model, then it may not be a desirable goal.

> Basically, it would suck if authors have to learn two vaguely similar
> animation models just so they can use SVG and HTML together.

It would also suck if they have to learn two vaguely similar animation 
models just to use transitions...

> It would also suck if the two animation models had different capabilities.

Why?

> While we won't ever get rid of SMIL, given the weight of SVG 1.1
> content on the web, we can at least make it unimportant for new
> authors to learn.

Is the cost in terms of resulting complexity in CSS 
Transitions/Animations worth it?

-Boris
Received on Friday, 18 March 2011 16:28:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:38 GMT