RE: Status of CSS Animation on SVG

Hi Dr. Olaf,

Thanks for responding.   I believe the syntax you are showing below (the first example) that you note as impractical is already a part of the SVG 1.1 and CSS Animations specification.  It is the currently implemented behavior in webkit.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann [mailto:Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de] 
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2012 5:23 AM
To: www-svg@w3.org; public-fx@w3.org
Subject: Re: Status of CSS Animation on SVG

Hello,

on the one hand, the CSS method resulting in something like this:
@-ms-keyframes msFillOpacity
{
    0%
    {
        fill-opacity: 0.8;
    }

    25%
    {
        fill-opacity: 0.6;
    }

    75%
    {
        fill-opacity: 0.4;
    }

    100%
    {
        fill-opacity: 0.2;
    }
}

still looks quite  impractical,  error-prone  and inconvenient for authors compared to the usual method to write: 
attributeName="fill-opacity" values="0.8;0.6;0.4;0.2"

On the other hand something like this:
@-ms-keyframes msStyleX1Y1X2Y2
{
    from
    {
        x1: 300px;
        x2: 600px;
        y1: 25px;
        y2: 75px;
    }

    to
    {
        x1: 300px;
        x2: 600px;
        y1: 75px;
        y2: 25px;
    }
}

looks quite interesting as idea.
It could be an improvement for SVG 2 to allow authors to define own lists of attributes for none decorative purposes, the animation applies to as something like attributeNames="x1;x2;y1;y2" - the remaining notation problem is how to separate more complex values in the values list for such a construction - an if and how paced animations may apply to such values lists.

To become usable for authors, I think, the CSS-animation proposal
- if needed at all - should become much more effective, simple and elegant concerning notation, as the already existing none decorative method already is.


(Because I have no MSIE or WebKit with meaningful SVG capabilites
available and I have never seen a working CSS-animation in 'real life'/daily
use of internet, I had only a look into the source code of one sample, 
therefore no comment on something different than what I have seen)


Olaf

Received on Monday, 30 January 2012 20:58:26 UTC