Re: Cascading Style Sheet Animations?

At 22:06  +0000 3/03/09, Oscar Godson wrote:
>I'm not sure if I even understand this or how this got put into the 
>specs of CSS. Animations are not styles in any way.
>I feel like this is going to be like <b>,<i>,<font> tags in HTML 
>where years later we are trying to correct the issue 
>with separating the presentation from the structure of the page. Why 
>wouldn't there be an animation language we could place in a <link/> 
>tag and have the browser render all animations in language made for 

I think this is very much debatable.  If, for example, my company 
logo is round, and when it can be, is shown as a 'spinning disc', but 
in print is stationary, I prefer that it is animated as a 
presentation issue on the web.  But it's valid unanimated.  This is 

>Can't we put effort and time into getting support for valid web page 
>styles like shadows, columns, gradients, border styles, multiple 
>backgrounds etc rather than trying to go completely outside the 
>scope of CSS. We can't even have real columns or rounded corners but 
>we want to be able to dynamically change properties of the 
>current partially browser supported properties?

I don't think that, for the most part, this is an either/or.  We at 
Apple volunteer the work to progress this, and we also do our best to 
implement, review, and suggest improvements to the specs of, new work 
in the CSS group.

>As of now we dynamically manipulate CSS with JavaScript to have the 
>_appearance of animations_, but shouldn't we just have a language 
>that _actually animates_ the DOM?

Note that for embedded animated material, SVG can be used in browsers 
that support it.
David Singer
Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 15:25:19 UTC