Re: Animating SVG with CSS

Erik Dahlström:
>
> I'm puzzled as to why you think that the CSS Animations draft doesn't
> apply.
>
> The CSS Transitions spec clearly states that all animatable SVG properties
> are supported when they have compatible types[1].
>

Well, at least 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-SVG11-20110816/styling.html
notes, which poperties are shared between CSS and SVG 1
and which apply to SVG 1 exclusively.
If meanwhile CSS has some of them adopted with the same
name, they are still not shared yet (this can be a task for SVG 2
- maybe with the result to skip such restriction sections).
This already restricts the questionable properties to a small list.

SVG 1 refers only to CSS 2, no current draft. CSS 2 does not contain
animation features, therefore it is nothing with a defined meaning for
SVG 1 documents. 
SVG 1 clearly predates such drafts, implicating no defined relation.

There is of course nothing, that prevents authors from noting anything
in stylesheets (even what is not mentioned in any draft or recommendation),
implementors may provide for test purposes experimental implementations
of drafted or other features as well with CSS vendor-prefix notation.
The behaviour might be somehow related to some specific draft version, 
but there is no need for such an alignment.
But for a draft I think it should not work without prefix, therefore it is
not applicable at all as drafted (this means without prefix).

Maybe you are only confused by the implications, which occur, because
typically implementations do not care about format versions, resulting
quite often in confused presentations, if different versions of formats
require different behaviour - finally the defined meaning of documents
it determined by the format version an author has used to create a document,
not by the interpretation of any viewer. This is the major feature/progress,
markup languages provided for authors of information.
This meaning cannot be changed later in newer format versions or viewer 
interpretations.
(Backwards incompatible) changes in an SVG 2 draft for example do never
apply to SVG 1 documents; HTML5 changes do not apply for HTML4 or XHTML 1.x 
documents. To create documents with a defined meaning following HTML5 rules,
authors have to add meta information about the relevant HTML5 draft for 
example with RDF(a) or  DCMI elements or terms, because such a (X)HTML 
version indication is not available in HTML5.  If a markup document exposes
no such relations, it has no defined meaning. In such a case it is quite 
useless to discuss what applies or what does not apply.


Olaf

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2014 14:06:02 UTC