Re: CSS SVG Discussion on Thursday

Dean Jackson:
...
>Some of the complaints against SMIL/SVG animation is that it mixes the 
>animation with the content, but that doesn't need to be so. It would be 
>fairly simply to define behaviour of an "animation sheet", referenced by a 
><link> element, that is an external file containing the animations. I'd 
>suggest adding a selector attribute to the animation elements to replace 
>xlink:href.

Basically this happened already with the timesheet draft of the SYMM WG:
http://www.w3.org/TR/timesheets/
Taking into account this and some more elegant notation to reference the
timesheet, there would be in general no need anymore for CSS-animations
(something like the CSS-transitions however can be a nice improvement for
declarative animation with SMIL as well as to apply animations to classes, not
only to single elements).
This basically has the advantage, that authors can concentrate on one 
simple method of notation (XML/SMIL) and no new CSS notation variant.

Even in SVG it is no problem to get a relative good separation putting
all animation stuff into the top defs element...
And because in most cases the animation in SVG is not only decorative 
as those intended for CSS-animations, within the same document is 
typically the right place for it - and a notation within the animated element
can have advantages, if one wants to provide alternative text content
for the animation itself, not only the whole document. I think, CSS-animations
have no own accessibility feature at all (?)


Olaf

Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 09:36:36 UTC