Re: Changing attributeType="CSS"

2009/10/31 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>

> Or do you mean the current CSS proposals for transitions and animation?
> I think, this attribute is not related to these proposals, they define on
> their own, what is animatable concerning CSS animation


We want the set of properties animateable by CSS Transitions and SVG
Animation to be the same (when specified via specifiedType="CSS"), and for
this set to be every CSS property. This will minimize author confusion and
maximise the power of SVG Animation. This is more important than following
the letter of the SMIL spec.

For legacy compatibility reasons, we can't do this for specifiedType="auto".
I propose that the set of CSS properties animated by specifiedType="auto" be
fixed forever to the set of properties it animates today, as defined by the
SVG spec. This will prevent compatibility problems in the future.

and such a
> property animated within CSS is 'somehow' integrated at some level
> in the SMIL sandwich model automatically, I think, because it is derived
> from a stylesheet, it has lower priority than an animation with
> attributeType CSS, if the same property is animated with SMIL too at
> the same time. Obviously this should be avoided by authors, because
> it causes even more complexity than what we already have now
> (and what was originally not really intended, as Chris Lilley mentioned
> already several times, but is now nevertheless defined in the SMIL
> sandwich model).
>

How CSS Transitions and SMIL interact is another topic. It's worth
discussing, but it needs a separate thread.

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]