Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au> wrote:

> 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.
>

>From stand-alone SVG? I would say yes unless a lot of people already rely on
this.


>
> 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.
>

I agree that it would be nice. I believe that none of the current browsers
support SMIL if the SVG is loaded through an <IMG> tag.

Rik