W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2009

Re: Changing attributeType="CSS"

From: Jonathan Watt <jwatt@jwatt.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 20:51:32 +0100
Message-ID: <4AEB43C4.8030106@jwatt.org>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org
On 2009-10-30 8:04 PM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote:
> I think, SMIL requires, that a format specifies, which attributes
> and properties are animatable.

Definition: "all properties".

> And in some cases one has
> to find out even more details (for example if a meaningful
> distance exists is concering paced animation for complex
> types).

I don't follow why this relates to determining whether a property is animatable.

> If 'defined as animatable in this specification' is removed,
> what defines, what is animatable and what could be the
> purpose to indicate which one is animatable and which
> one not? It might have reasons, if something is indicated
> to be not animatable (maybe it would help to indicate the
> reason in the specification, however, to avoid more 
> questions).

Are there any properties for which you would want to specifically prohibit
animation? If so, why? If not, maybe the animatable entry in the property tables
should just be removed.

> And about:
> "It would seem better not to impose an artificial limit, and to 
> enable parity between SMIL animation and CSS animation.'
> attributeType is always related to SMIL animation and 
> nothing else. For attributeType XML an attribute is animated
> and for attributeType CSS a property, both with SMIL 
> animation. And in both cases the SVG specification notes
> for every attribute or property, whether it is animatable or not.
> I cannot see any disparity, expecially because for attributeType
> XML is noted too:  'The attribute must be defined as animatable in this 
> specification'.

I'm saying that with the current CSS proposals for transitions and animations
you can animate more properties than you can with SMIL animation. Why would we
(or anyone) want that to be the case?

Received on Friday, 30 October 2009 19:52:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:24 UTC