- From: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 16:50:06 -0700
- To: Doug Schepers <schepers@w3.org>
- CC: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
Hi Doug, On 8/8/11 3:09 PM, "Doug Schepers" <schepers@w3.org> wrote: >Hi, Vincent- > >Vincent Hardy wrote (on 8/8/11 5:43 PM): >> >> 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. > >This doesn't have to be an inherent limitation of SMIL syntax. Back in >2004, I proposed a way to reuse declarative animations: > > http://svg-whiz.com/BAM/#section3 > >SVG already has an architecture geared toward reuse of resources, from >paint servers (like gradients) to graphics features (like filters, >clipping paths, masks, and so on) to graphics themselves (like <use>, >markers, etc.). Reusing animations seems very natural to me. Sorry I was not clear. What I meant to say was that there were things that needed to be improved in SMIL if we wanted to make that the (or one of the) solution(s). I did not mean to say it could not be improved/appended. I actually think the things I mentioned can be addressed in SMIL without too much effort. Cheers, Vincent
Received on Monday, 8 August 2011 23:50:57 UTC