- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 14:12:49 +0200
- To: public-fx@w3.org
Hello, I think, one has alway keep in mind, that CSS provides only an additional styling/presentation and has nothing to do with the content of a document. Up to now I have only seen a few pages (well only in my own photo gallery) using CSS for SVG to provide an alternative appearence of the document presentation. Therefore I think, CSS syntax for SVG is not very important in general. Does anyone know SVG documents with only decorative animations in it? At least the thousends of documents I produced including animation and I think most from other authors I have seen have no purely decorative animation in it, therefore for all of these documents CSS syntax for animation is practically useless. On the other hand - sure for something like huge text output in XHTML, decorative animation can be an option. Users just have to switch off CSS interpretation or to switch to an alternative style to get the static alternative of the content. If the animation is somehow important for the content, an author should use declarative animation (SMIL timesheets) anyway for XHTML and no CSS. To align the CSS syntax to the SMIL variant will simplify usage and understandability of the CSS files. But some improvements for SVG taken from CSS can help as well - especially to apply animations to classes of elements, not just to single elements, if in a few cases an authors need this and grouping with the element g is no option. Olaf
Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2011 12:13:29 UTC