W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > March 2014

Re: question about "presentation attributes"

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2014 16:32:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDBA5gUnNa4cfAEPSKA-TTaL+bB75VwBcBgtYb8RnJ5eRA@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
Cc: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:25 AM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net> wrote:
> 1. Will something like href, while not a presentation attribute and hence not stylable in CSS, still be animatable using CSS?

No, unless we at some point add CSS properties for hyperlinks.

> 2. What might the syntax for doing such be?

If we did add CSS properties for hyperlinks, the syntax would be the
same as animating any other property.

> 3. Is that all spelled out in http://dev.w3.org/fxtf/web-animations/ ? If so I will read more carefully.

That's a JS API that lets you hook into the same machinery that
underlies CSS and SVG animations.  It's early, so support in browsers
is patchy, but there's also a polyfill you can use.

> 4. When might we expect such things to actually work in browsers (particularly IE where it most matters)? Just an aside: HTML5 with its apparent embrace of the philosophy of never-converging toward a completed spec, seems to have created quite a plethora of different experimental technologies being embraced in different browsers. I rather preferred having finite specs, like SVG 1.1 where it was easier to tell which browsers were compliant and which weren't.

Depends on when those other browsers decide to implement the stuff.

(The organization of specs has no real effect on implementations.  The
web is just getting bigger, which increases the number of things that
might or might not be supported at any given time.  Splitting things
up into smaller, more "finite" specs doesn't help with this - you have
the same larger set of features, and the same chance of random bits of
them being unimplemented.  CSS, with its plethora of modules that do
indeed reach an "end", isn't any better than HTML.)

~TJ
Received on Saturday, 22 March 2014 23:32:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:51 UTC