Hi Glenn, On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:30 PM, Glenn Adams <glenn@skynav.com> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:22 PM, Brian Birtles <bbirtles@mozilla.com>wrote: > >> Having thought about this a little more (and having been persuaded by >> others), I think we can probably get away with the syntax divide. >> Ultimately the rule might look something like "animations applied through >> the style system sit on top of those applied directly to the elements." >> That would still allow a lot of the future situations I have in mind (e.g. >> CSS animations adding to SVG, SVG animations being applied through CSS >> etc.) Even if we were to phrase it as "CSS beats SVG" we could make it more >> generic later. >> >> Also, even with such a rule, I've been persuaded that it will still be >> possible to add more fine-grained control later so that we could have, for >> example, an SVG animation adding on top of a CSS one. >> > > By "on top of" to you mean "has priority over"? The former expression is > vague, so please clarify. > I think (correct me if wrong Brian) what he means is making the CSS animation be another layer in the SMIL sandwich model. This is something I suggested a while ago (without thinking it through completely). The vague idea was to have a CSS animation as just another layer in the SMIL sandwich model so you could use both and it'd do something useful. Right now the advantage of CSS animation is that it's easy to map to a H/W accelerated animation engine whilst I don't believe that's the case for SMIL. We would ideally like to be able to H/W accelerate as much as possible so reconciling SMIL and CSS animations into something sensible that could map to H/W capabilities would be awesome. How we get there is another thing - and I'd welcome input from everyone about how they think this could be achieved. Alex
Received on Wednesday, 29 February 2012 00:15:03 UTC