Re: several messages regarding animation in XBL

On Thu, 8 Feb 2007, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 
> After discussions in the group we resolved that we would like the 
> animation targetting control features, whatever they end up being, to be 
> included in the XBL specification.  XBL has descriptions of how 
> processing of CSS changes in the presence of XBL, and CSS is optional, 
> so it should be no more difficult or an impediment for implementors to 
> have similar specification of how animation targetting works in the 
> presence of XBL.

Ok.

I have added text to XBL2 that makes SVG animation elements that would 
otherwise target an <xbl:template> element that is the root of a shadow 
tree instead target the bound element's parent element, if any.

This handles:
 
 * A bound element being animated by its explicit children
 * A bound element acting as an animation element
 * A bound element's shadow tree being animated

It doesn't handle a bound element being itself inately animated by a 
binding. However, this doesn't seem like a valid thing to do -- if you 
want the bound element to appear animated, then its shadow tree should be 
animated. Elements don't intrinsically self-animate; either their 
presentation self-animates, or they provide an animation interface 
(traits) for hosts to animate.


> > Could you elaborate on the use case for this?
> 
> I don't have one, really.

XBL2 is based on use cases. :-)


On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Cameron McCormack wrote:
> 
> Ian previously stated that whether elements are in the flattened tree or 
> not determines only whether they are rendered.  Also there is this text 
> in 4.9.1:
> 
>   Shadow content is not considered part of a document, so elements that
>   are defined to trigger when they are "inserted into the document" do
>   not trigger during binding attachment.
> 
> However, in SMIL documents and SVG documents with SMIL animation 
> elements in them, it is whether the element is in the document that 
> determines if it is processed.

Could you elaborate on where SVG and/or SMIL says that?

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 17:48:43 UTC