- From: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
- Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 18:47:23 +0200
- To: Kelly Miller <lightsolphoenix@gmail.com>
- Cc: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>, www-style@w3.org
* Kelly Miller wrote: >| We already have declarative means for animations and transition effects >| in SMIL and proposals like http://www.w3.org/Submission/xml-timing/ and >| http://www.mozilla.org/projects/xbl/xbl2.html that cover related issues. >| It would be best if you could explain in detail why these do not provide >| adequate syntax or semantics and why a CSS-based solution would, how the >| proposed solution interacts with those other facilities, why it would be >| sufficient to provide to functionality provided by your proposal and >| other problems (e.g., runtime synchronization of media embedded via CSS) >| do not need to be addressed, and how important you think this problem is >| relative to problems http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work the CSS WG >| is already trying to tackle. > >IMO, the reasoning is the same as that used to explain why CSS should >have simple gradient syntax; for simple animations, SMIL/XBL is overkill. Overkill in terms of what? Is the syntax too verbose, the implementation cost too high, is having authors to learn SMIL too much to ask, ...? How would adding such a feature benefit e.g. the SVG community? -- Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Sunday, 14 May 2006 16:47:28 UTC