Re: Dropping angle-bracket syntax for animation

On 8/5/11 5:23 PM, "Dean Jackson" <dino@apple.com> wrote:

>[trimming the cc list]
>
>On 04/08/2011, at 8:03 AM, Vincent Hardy wrote:
>
>>> I suppose if we get agreement on that, then we can see what the
>>> difference in functionality between SVG and (extended) CSS Animations
>>> is, which will help us determine which of the three broad directions
>>> Brian outlined we should head towards.
>> 
>> Since we have an action (ACTION-48 - Write up use-cases and priority
>>list
>> of features to be added to css animations [on Dean Jackson - due
>> 2011-08-02]), I think that means we had agreement during the meeting on
>> that direction.
>
>That's my understanding too. I think we can start from the excellent wiki
>page that Brian authored. At least, that's what I planned to do.

Thanks for confirming.

> 
>
>At the risk of reigniting the thread that had finally died down, I do not
>think we should drop the SMIL syntax from SVG (I believe I argued
>similarly months ago when it came up here). I do understand Microsoft's
>hesitation to implement a feature that people are not requesting. The
>people on this list unfortunately don't count as regular users, and CSS
>animations are already more widespread, so it makes sense to somewhat
>prioritize effort in that direction.

>From a tool perspective, SMIL is easy to manipulate/transform/round-trip
than CSS animations are because there is an easy structure to manipulate.
This said, it has some short comings that Brian's summary highlight, most
importantly the ability to target multiple elements and
attributes/properties. Better animation group into a common time container
would also be very helpful in SVG (and CSS Animations for that matter).

Vincent

Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 21:43:58 UTC