Re: CSS Animations Targeting SVG attributes

On 15/03/2011, at 8:22 AM, Cameron McCormack wrote:

> Robert O'Callahan:
>> OK, that implies a hard requirement that arbitrary CSS rules be able to
>> override any SVG attribute value. Whatever syntax you choose, that means
>> effectively minting a lot of new properties. Someone should make a list of
>> all the new properties that will be needed.
> Patrick made a list of SVG attributes he would like to see animatable
> from CSS:
> Thatís about 45 of them (assuming we mash together all attributes with
> the same name into a single property).  The list seems reasonable at
> first glance.  Initially I was in favour of promote *all* SVG attributes
> that are defined to be animatable, just so that authors didnít have to
> worry about which ones are animatable (yet) and which arenít.  Other
> people on the FX call today seemed in favour of the staging approach,
> where we take a subset of the attributes (like Patrickís list) to limit
> the work we need to do initially.

Starting with the third group as an experiment sounds good to me.

I'm not sure we want to expose filter properties as attributes because (a) there are a lot of them and (b) I think our parallel effort for CSS-based filters is going to cover most of what people want, at least in the short term. There is always the option to animate SVG filters via SMIL.

By the way, why are "d" and "points" not included? As ugly as it will be to put them in CSS, I don't see why a circle's radius is any more a style property than a path's shape.


Received on Monday, 14 March 2011 21:32:31 UTC