On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Giovanni Campagna < scampa.giovanni@gmail.com> wrote: > @Robert O' Callahan > Yes but they have completely different syntaxes. From an author point of > view, integration is not that bad. Yes, but the CSS Transitions syntax is far better than the SMIL syntax, for several reasons (being purely CSS-based is one reason). Trying to synchronize the syntax would destroy that and doesn't seem worth it. Besides, CSS Animation (which is mentioned in CSS CurrentWork and will maybe > be introduced in CSS4) is actually very similar to SMIL Animation (only how > property changes, not why) > Indeed, and we are much less interested in Apple's CSS Animation proposal than CSS Transitions. Rob -- "He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all." [Isaiah 53:5-6]
Received on Saturday, 27 December 2008 19:35:16 UTC