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:

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

This page:

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