Re: SVG SMIL news from Google

Hi David,

As with all web things, the community matters and it was the community that
convinced IE to add SVG a few years back, and so at least for now the
deprecation is (as I said at TGW last year), like Winston Churchill:-)

In any case, SVG in <img> definitely should be supported, the lack of
scripting mitigates most security worries.

In other news, FF48 shipped Web Animations which is great news for folks
wanting things to animate on a parallel thread to avoid jank on the main
thread, so perhaps you should start exploring that API (admittedly JS, but
I'd hope we can someday find a declarative syntax that folks would be happy
implementing).

Alex

On 17 August 2016 at 15:46, 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 thought that others here might be interested to know.
>
>
>
> 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
>