Re: new feature request

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 8:55 AM, David Dailey <>

> Social media sites (SM) do not want to enable <object> as the host of
> user-uploaded images because of not wanting to trust third-party scripts
> [1]. Social media are, in terms of overall volume of readership probably as
> big as |WWW minus SM| . And leaving animation to be handled by animated GIF
> seems an unpleasant value of the status quo in terms of accessibility and
> bandwidth.

Let's be clear: animation in SVG images does work, using SMIL or CSS
animations. What doesn't work is event-triggered animations. Animated GIFs
don't support event-triggered animations, so you shouldn't have any
problems replacing animated GIFs with animated SVG images.

I assume that a lot of the people who let you upload to IMG but not IFRAME
don't want you to upload interactive stuff, and we shouldn't break those
expectations. You can't smuggle interactive uploads into social media sites
by changing browsers underneath them. You need to negotiate directly with
those sites to find out what it would take for them to allow uploads of
interactive content. If it would take new browser features, I'd like to
hear about that.

oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyooonoeo owohooo oioso oaonogoroyo
owoiotoho oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro owoiololo oboeo
osouobojoeocoto otooo ojouodogomoeonoto.o oAogoaoiono,o oaonoyooonoeo
osoaoyoso otooo oao oboroootohoeoro oooro osoiosotoeoro,o o‘oRoaocoao,o’o
oaonosowoeoroaoboloeo otooo otohoeo ocooouoroto.o oAonodo oaonoyooonoeo
osoaoyoso,o o‘oYooouo ofooooolo!o’o owoiololo oboeo oiono odoaonogoeoro
otohoeo ofoioroeo ooofo ohoeololo.

Received on Thursday, 5 March 2015 22:33:44 UTC