Animation in HTML - Revision history

Annevk at 10:05, 31 May 2012

2012-05-31T10:05:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:05, 31 May 2012
Line 22:		Line 22:
	* If "CSS animation" was chosen, would this effort become an additional activity of the HTML Working Group? Or would it be a separate proposal formalized by Apple with which the HTML WG would coordinate? ''CSS working group''		* If "CSS animation" was chosen, would this effort become an additional activity of the HTML Working Group? Or would it be a separate proposal formalized by Apple with which the HTML WG would coordinate? ''CSS working group''
	* The [[New_Vocabularies\|current proposal]] suggests CSS animation. Other than the fact that it's XML, are there any technical arguments against using SMIL (i.e. why is it considered the inferior choice)? ''SMIL requires markup changes to use, for stylistic effects''		* The [[New_Vocabularies\|current proposal]] suggests CSS animation. Other than the fact that it's XML, are there any technical arguments against using SMIL (i.e. why is it considered the inferior choice)? ''SMIL requires markup changes to use, for stylistic effects''

			[[Category:Proposals]]

Jeff schiller at 17:09, 1 April 2008

2008-04-01T17:09:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 1 April 2008
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* Provides externally referenced 'timesheet' to define temporal behavior of document		* Provides externally referenced 'timesheet' to define temporal behavior of document
	* Works for HTML without markup change (uses existing HTML:link element similar)		* Works for HTML without markup change (uses existing HTML:link element similar)
			* Spec currently in Working Draft status with an active Working Group and Activity
	* See example [http://www.w3.org/TR/timesheets/#smilTimesheetsNS-Elements-Timesheet\|here]		* See example [http://www.w3.org/TR/timesheets/#smilTimesheetsNS-Elements-Timesheet\|here]

Jeff schiller: Added ref to SMIL timesheets

2008-04-01T17:07:45Z

Added ref to SMIL timesheets

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:07, 1 April 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:
	* Existing tools and content use SMIL (two web browsers now support SVG+SMIL: Opera and Apple)		* Existing tools and content use SMIL (two web browsers now support SVG+SMIL: Opera and Apple)
	* Microsoft has shown some interest in SMIL (HTML+TIME)		* Microsoft has shown some interest in SMIL (HTML+TIME)

			'''Use SMIL Timesheets with a link element'''<br>
			Pros:<br>
			* Provides externally referenced 'timesheet' to define temporal behavior of document
			* Works for HTML without markup change (uses existing HTML:link element similar)
			* See example [http://www.w3.org/TR/timesheets/#smilTimesheetsNS-Elements-Timesheet\|here]

	'''Apple's CSS animation proposal'''<br>		'''Apple's CSS animation proposal'''<br>

Hixie at 05:49, 1 April 2008

2008-04-01T05:49:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:49, 1 April 2008
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Pros:<br>		Pros:<br>
	* Already implemented by Apple in Safari		* Already implemented by Apple in Safari
			* Works for HTML without markup changes.

	'''Questions'''<br>		'''Questions'''<br>
	* Any patent-encumberances with Apple's proposal?		* Any patent-encumberances with Apple's proposal? ''They are willing to submit it to W3C''
	* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec, peer reviewed?		* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec, peer reviewed? ''Not yet''
	* If "CSS animation" was chosen, would this effort become an additional activity of the HTML Working Group? Or would it be a separate proposal formalized by Apple with which the HTML WG would coordinate?		* If "CSS animation" was chosen, would this effort become an additional activity of the HTML Working Group? Or would it be a separate proposal formalized by Apple with which the HTML WG would coordinate? ''CSS working group''
	* The [[New_Vocabularies\|current proposal]] suggests CSS animation. Other than the fact that it's XML, are there any technical arguments against using SMIL (i.e. why is it considered the inferior choice)?		* The [[New_Vocabularies\|current proposal]] suggests CSS animation. Other than the fact that it's XML, are there any technical arguments against using SMIL (i.e. why is it considered the inferior choice)? ''SMIL requires markup changes to use, for stylistic effects''

Jeff schiller at 04:02, 30 March 2008

2008-03-30T04:02:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:02, 30 March 2008
Line 13:		Line 13:
	* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec, peer reviewed?		* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec, peer reviewed?
	* If "CSS animation" was chosen, would this effort become an additional activity of the HTML Working Group? Or would it be a separate proposal formalized by Apple with which the HTML WG would coordinate?		* If "CSS animation" was chosen, would this effort become an additional activity of the HTML Working Group? Or would it be a separate proposal formalized by Apple with which the HTML WG would coordinate?
	* The [New_Vocabularies\|current proposal] suggests CSS animation. Other than the fact that it's XML, are there any technical arguments against using SMIL (i.e. why is it considered the inferior choice)?		* The [[New_Vocabularies\|current proposal]] suggests CSS animation. Other than the fact that it's XML, are there any technical arguments against using SMIL (i.e. why is it considered the inferior choice)?

Jeff schiller at 04:01, 30 March 2008

2008-03-30T04:01:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:01, 30 March 2008
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Use a form of SMIL'''		'''Use a form of SMIL'''<br>
			Pros:<br>
			* Already a W3C specification with an active Working Group and Activity
			* Existing tools and content use SMIL (two web browsers now support SVG+SMIL: Opera and Apple)
			* Microsoft has shown some interest in SMIL (HTML+TIME)

	* The existing proposal states using the "CSS animation proposal~~". I assume this is the proprietary, experimental form of animation put forth~~ by Apple~~? What are the technical merits of the CSS animation~~ proposal ~~over SMIL~~?		'''Apple's CSS animation proposal'''<br>
	* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec~~? Has it been~~ peer reviewed? ~~Why should~~ the HTML ~~group spend time and resources reviewing, editing~~ a ~~new~~ proposal ~~when an existing one exists (SMIL)~~?		Pros:<br>
	* ~~Assuming some form of SVG inline with HTML~~, ~~since SVG can already be animated via~~ SMIL~~, there would be two different ways of animating content~~. ~~Why~~?		* Already implemented by Apple in Safari

			'''Questions'''<br>
			* Any patent-encumberances with Apple's proposal?
			* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec, peer reviewed?
			* If "CSS animation" was chosen, would this effort become an additional activity of the HTML Working Group? Or would it be a separate proposal formalized by Apple with which the HTML WG would coordinate?
			* The [New_Vocabularies\|current proposal] suggests CSS animation. Other than the fact that it's XML, are there any technical arguments against using SMIL (i.e. why is it considered the inferior choice)?

Jeff schiller at 03:46, 30 March 2008

2008-03-30T03:46:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 30 March 2008
Line 2:		Line 2:

	* The existing proposal states using the "CSS animation proposal". I assume this is the proprietary, experimental form of animation put forth by Apple? What are the technical merits of the CSS animation proposal over SMIL?		* The existing proposal states using the "CSS animation proposal". I assume this is the proprietary, experimental form of animation put forth by Apple? What are the technical merits of the CSS animation proposal over SMIL?
	* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec? Has it been peer reviewed? Why should the HTML group spend time and resources reviewing, editing a new proposal when an existing one exists?		* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec? Has it been peer reviewed? Why should the HTML group spend time and resources reviewing, editing a new proposal when an existing one exists (SMIL)?
	* Assuming some form of SVG inline with HTML, since SVG can already be animated via SMIL, there would be two different ways of animating content. Why?		* Assuming some form of SVG inline with HTML, since SVG can already be animated via SMIL, there would be two different ways of animating content. Why?

Jeff schiller: New page: '''Use a form of SMIL''' * The existing proposal states using the "CSS animation proposal". I assume this is the proprietary, experimental form of animation put forth by Apple? What are...

2008-03-30T03:42:32Z

New page: '''Use a form of SMIL''' * The existing proposal states using the "CSS animation proposal". I assume this is the proprietary, experimental form of animation put forth by Apple? What are...

New page

'''Use a form of SMIL'''

* The existing proposal states using the "CSS animation proposal". I assume this is the proprietary, experimental form of animation put forth by Apple? What are the technical merits of the CSS animation proposal over SMIL?
* Has the "CSS animation proposal" been formalized in a spec? Has it been peer reviewed? Why should the HTML group spend time and resources reviewing, editing a new proposal when an existing one exists?
* Assuming some form of SVG inline with HTML, since SVG can already be animated via SMIL, there would be two different ways of animating content. Why?