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

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Charles Lamont
<> wrote:
>>> 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?

I have no idea.  You can test this by turning off JS and trying to use
the <marquee> element; it's already implemented via browser JS in

>> 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.

Those examples are extremely terrible.  The CSS one repeats itself
twice, due to prefixes; the -moz one is definitely unnecessary, and
the -webkit one may or may not be (it works unprefixed on my machine,
but that might be due to a flag I have turned on).  Once you remove
those duplications, the example becomes similar in size to the SMIL
one (less lines, but longer; total text length is roughly comparable).
The scripting example is similarly terrible; it's being done with
plain JS, not the Web Animations API.  Written properly, the JS
example will be roughly the same size and complexity of the other two


Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2015 04:17:22 UTC