- From: Dirk Schulze <vbs85@gmx.de>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 19:02:42 +0200
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Cc: public-fx@w3.org
A bit off topic, sorry. Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > Tab Atkins Jr.: >>> >>> Because decorative CSS animation is just a draft currently and content >>> animation with SMIL/SVG is specified and used for years, I think, we can >>> safely assume, that there are only experimental decorative projects >>> outside using CSS animation currently and a huge amount of content using >>> SMIL/SVG. >> >> This is an incorrect assumption. CSS Transitions and Animations are >> used quite a lot on the web currently, even though they were, until >> recently, only supported in WebKit. (It helps that Transitions, in >> particular, degrades really well.) >> > > This indicates as well, that it is currently only used for experimental > purposes. Concerning WebKit SVG capabilities I found very interesting > issues anyway (tested with different flavours of this program on the > current Debian system) - from no interpretation of SVG at all to problems > with encoding of XML documents - I think, one of those browsers did not > even display any HTML or plain text. These are fun toys, no browsers ;o) > This indicates as well, that projects related to WebKit are only experimental, > not intended for normal users ;o) You can not infer from experimental implementations (especially on linux), that WebKit is not doing its job correctly. You should use a nightly of WebKit based browsers like Safari or Chromium. SVG animation support improved a lot lately. And even will get better. Please read [1] for a detailed explanation about the different ports of WebKit and why they perform that different. > I'm pretty sure, that some people get this browser run somehow, > with a lot of efforts I can get something out of some of some of these > browsers as well (simplest one was the generic WebKit browser, but with > a size of some Gigabyte typically nobody will install it), but normal > users will not do this, therefore from my point of view, using this > browser is experimental in general currently ;o) Don't mixture browser engines and browsers. WebKit itself is a browser engine, and together with all internal tests, the source code is indeed 1GB or more. I don't believe that there is much difference to other browsers in that point. Normal users shouldn't download the source of a browser engine, but the complete browser. > The behaviour for > normal users is not predictable (or it is predictable, that it does not > work without advanced experiments). > For daily use there are for example Opera, Geckos, Konqueror > (KHTML, KSVG) or Amaya without having so many difficulties > as with WebKit browsers... Again, don't use experimental applications but real browsers for comparisons. Dirk [1] http://ariya.blogspot.com/2011/06/your-webkit-port-is-special-just-like.html
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2011 17:03:10 UTC