A user account is required in order to edit this wiki, but we've had to disable public user registrations due to spam.

To request an account, ask an autoconfirmed user on Chat (such as one of these permanent autoconfirmed members).

Animation in HTML: Difference between revisions

From WHATWG Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
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? 
'''Use SMIL Timesheets with a link element'''<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?
* Provides externally referenced 'timesheet' to define temporal behavior of document
* 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]
 
'''Apple's CSS animation proposal'''<br>
Pros:<br>
* Already implemented by Apple in Safari
* Works for HTML without markup changes.
 
'''Questions'''<br>
* 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?  ''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? ''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''
 
[[Category:Proposals]]

Latest revision as of 10:05, 31 May 2012

Use a form of SMIL
Pros:

  • 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)

Use SMIL Timesheets with a link element
Pros:

  • Provides externally referenced 'timesheet' to define temporal behavior of document
  • 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 [1]

Apple's CSS animation proposal
Pros:

  • Already implemented by Apple in Safari
  • Works for HTML without markup changes.

Questions

  • 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? 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? CSS working group
  • The 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
Retrieved from "https://wiki.whatwg.org/index.php?title=Animation_in_HTML&oldid=8265"