Re: SMIL is dead,.. long live the SMIL

>> The result is that I am totally confused. Is SMIL dead or not? Will the
>> SMIL animated SVG that I wrote, and which has featured in Wikipedia for
>> the last 6 years continue to work (where it does now) or not?
>> Is it intended that some time soon SMIL declarative animation (or
>> something 'backward compatible') will work in Internet Explorer or not?
> 
> SMIL won't work in IE for the foreseeable future; I don't particularly
> expect them to change their position on this (but I could be
> surprised).  It will continue to work, as much as it does, in the
> other browsers; in particular, Chrome is dropping its native support
> and switching to browser-JS to run it instead.  This shouldn't come
> with much, if any, of a behavior change.

Presumably, then, it would stop working in Chrome for someone who has
disabled Javascript?

> We (Chrome) aren't interested in any further changes or improvements
> to SMIL, though.  Further improvements to animations should be done by
> additions to Web Animations, and if we need declarative ways to access
> such improvements, we'd prefer it be done via additions to CSS
> Animations.

I still don't understand what this actually means:

http://www.w3.org/TR/web-animations/#relationship-to-other-specifications

I don't know what you mean by "... if we need declarative ways ...".

This page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SVG_animation

makes the problem with the WG's approach very clear. Looking at the
examples, the SMIL example is clear and readable; the CSS example is
less so, for reasons vehemently expressed by DD & JM earlier in this
discussion; and the scripted example is even more verbose and cannot
even be demonstrated: "No example as uploads with ECMAScript are
barred". Scripting is not always possible. Declarative animation, where
it can be used, is usually simpler to write, read and maintain.

-- 
Charles Lamont

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 00:36:23 UTC