On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:46 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>
wrote:
> This just out from Google (thanks to one of the SVG enthusiasts at Ello
> for letting me know).
>
>
>
> Excerpt: “We value all of your feedback, and it's clear that there are
> use cases serviced by SMIL that just don’t have high-fidelity replacements
> yet. As a result, we’ve decided to suspend our intent to deprecate and take
> smaller steps toward other options.”
>
>
>
> https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!topic/
> blink-dev/5o0yiO440LM%5B126-150%5D
>
>
>
> Delighted to hear this, Phil and Alex!
>
I am too, kind of. I have apps that use SMIL.
>
> I thought that others here might be interested to know.
>
Yes, thank you David. This takes the pressure off deprecating yet another
useful SVG feature although I suppose I'll still have to do it.
>
>
> Now, if as Amelia points out[1], folks can work on convincing places like
> FB, Google Plus, Twitter and Wikipedia that SVG in <img> adds value to
> their platforms – and is safe--, the web will become a richer place. Am I
> correct in concluding from what I read at the links you provided, Amelia,
> that SVG in <img> is, as much as anything on the web, safe right now?
>
>
>
> Smil(es)
>
> David
>
>
>
> [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-svg/2016Aug/0030.html
>
--
Any coward can sit in his home and criticize a pilot for flying into a
mountain in a fog. But I would rather, by far, die on a mountainside
than in bed.
-- Charles Lindbergh
Received on Wednesday, 17 August 2016 20:35:32 UTC