Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

On 2/08/11 4:16 PM, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> I don't really see the point of having CSS associated with a standalone
> SVG file. It makes much more sense to do CSS if the SVG is inlined in
> your HTML.
> Maybe the spec should be broken into these 2 use cases:
> - stand-alone SVG files always use attributes.
> - inline SVG always uses CSS styling

I don't think we want to do away with the <style> element in standalone 
SVG.  I find it useful, at least.

> I think this will solve several issues. For instance, the problem on how
> to integrate CSS transforms would go away.

Well, you would still need to define what <g style="transform: ..."> 
does.  Unless you wanted to drop the style="" attribute too.

I think dropping <style> from SVG makes as much sense as dropping it 
from HTML.

> Also, it will not break backward compatibility since there is very
> little content out that is using this.
>
> My proposal would make standalone SVG static since CSS animations won't
> work.
> I don't know how much of an issue that would be. (CSS animated SVG
> loaded through the <img> tag will not likely support animation anyway.)

I would hope CSS Animations would work in this situation.