Re: Changing attributeType="CSS"

Robert O'Callahan: 

>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.

The experiences with SMIL in the last years have shown, that this is
already complex. And I think, it would be much more confusing for authors, 
if some (more) arbitrary deviations from SMIL are implemented.

It is quite annoying for authors to work around any known or unkown
bugs, gaps and deviations within implementations. This creates much 
more confusion and frustration as to learn two quite different languages, 
if there is at least the chance, that implementations behave predictable 
as specified in each of them.
It causes frustration as well, if some feature is not available anymore, 
because something was 'simplified' or 'optimised', just because those
'optimisers' or should I say 'pessimisers' did not understand, that the
previously specified things have their use cases ;o)

In this case, the CSS proposals just have to note, what is animatable
within the CSS approach. There is no conflict with SMIL and no
relation between the CSS transition and animation proposal and
the nasty attributeType derived from SMIL and only useful for SMIL
animation in some rare cases.
In the CSS proposal one can or should note of course, that this
approach is completely independent from SMIL animation, just to
avoid confusion for authors already familiar with the SMIL approach.

;o)

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

indeed, indeed.
I noted this already in a comment about the CSS proposals months
ago ;o)

Received on Saturday, 31 October 2009 11:28:05 UTC