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
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Added ref to SMIL timesheets) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| 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] | ||
| Line 21: | 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]] | |||
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