Re: SVG animation and relationship to SMIL 3.0 Animation

Hi Dirk,

Thanks for bringing this up. I tend to agree with the idea of getting 
rid of redundant examples and text from SVG.

However:

* Getting rid of the examples means authors have to do a lot of 
cross-referencing to write a simple animation. Maybe we can still keep 
some example(s)?

* SMIL Animation is a special self-contained profile which omits 
features such as time containers etc. Referring to SMIL 3.0 makes things 
a little more complicated because it's bigger and there's a lot of stuff 
that doesn't apply to SVG even within the Timing and Synchronization and 
Animations chapters. Maybe that's ok though?

In practice, implementers still refer to SMIL 3.0 and import updated 
definitions into the subset outline in SMIL Animation.

Also, if we are to support time containers in SVG 2 and rely on SMIL for 
the definition, we *have* to refer to something other than SMIL 
Animation anyway.

It's really a matter of timing. Ultimately, we're seeking to replace 
SVG's dependence on SMIL altogether with Web Animations. I'm not sure 
how the timing is going to work out, but ideally I'd like to see SVG 2's 
animation defined in terms of Web Animations only.

Best regards,

Brian

Received on Monday, 28 May 2012 02:21:19 UTC