- From: Bob Hopgood <frahopgood@gmail.com>
- Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2015 09:05:46 +0100
- To: www-svg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CA+52mcE=ZEH7c7Sj_jikDZQdCPE1yxADnYC7s5f3nmw_s9RX-w@mail.gmail.com>
I disgree with your statement that there is no distinction between "content" and "style" animations. The whole point of CSS styling is that it gives the user the ability to change the styling of a presentation. It is style not content for that reason. To first order, CSS cannot change the content of either SVG or HTML. It would be a misuse of CSS if it was allowed to add 'not' after every verb in an HTML page. CSS cannot change HTML text substantially because it cannot change the content only the style. Similarly it would be wrong to have CSS changing the timing of an animation that demonstrated the speed at which somebody should massage a person's heart when it stops. Or changes the animation of a traffic stop light so that the light at the bottom is red and the one at the top is green. Just as CSS cannot or should not change the meaning of an HTML page so it should not change the content of an SVG animation. Just because the code that renders the speeded up heart animation or the inverted traffic lights is similar to the original content animation is a coding issue that has nothing to do with style or content. Similarly, the browser can choose to use SVG to display all the HTML pages. That is an implementation issue which may be important in terms of performance or code reuse. HTML markup is how you define simple textual content. SVG animation mark up is how you define content animations. CSS is how you tailor such presentations to user's needs ensuring that the page content in both cases is not changed. We communicate our meaning to a machine via content and allow the user to render/style that content in a way best suited to his/her environment and/or preferences and/or disabilities while trying to ensure that the meaning cannot be changed by the user.
Received on Saturday, 6 June 2015 08:06:15 UTC