- From: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
- Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 23:16:55 -0400
- To: "'SVG public list'" <www-svg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <000601cf5d10$2608e210$721aa630$@net>
Hello, I was interested in seeing whether I could use CSS animation to do a variety of things that one would normally do with SVG. http://cs.sru.edu/~ddailey/svg/cssSVGrotate2.htm In particular, I was interested in using declarative animation across browsers, and realizing that part of the reason for putting energy into CSS transitions was because Microsoft had said no to SVG/SMIL. And knowing of all the energy that has been put into that (detracting perhaps from energies that might otherwise have gone into SVG). I figured it was time to take another look. The little tests here reveal that Firefox, Opera and Chrome all scored 4/4 on these little tests. Safari/Win received a 2.5/4 - messing up the clean lines of the rotating HTML table, and refusing to animate the rotation of the SVG through CSS. I should note, however that that was the first time I ran Safari on that file. After running it on the experiments described in Part II (my next message) my Safari seems even more displeased with these experiments. Internet Explorer 11 animated the HTML stuff just fine but did not want to use CSS to animate the rotation of the SVG. I suppose it is worth waiting a few more years to be able to use declarative techniques to animate graphical content across browsers? Or am I just missing something with IE and Safari? I have been told that Safari/Win has been discontinued, so I suspect that Safari/Apple is much further along than I am able to test. I think it is cute, though, that we can now animate HTML using declarative techniques. Too bad about the SVG part. In the experiment at upper right I was interested in using the animation of stroke-dash-offset to peel an apple, so to speak, as it rotates. I found though that I could not extend the radial gradient into the stroke - browsers seeming to want to keep it confined to the shape. That's the subject of the next message: Part II. Cheers David
Received on Monday, 21 April 2014 03:17:33 UTC