Hi,
The Inkscape and SMIL thread is getting pretty long so I am starting a new thread on if SMIL is the right solution for animation in Inkscape.
I personally think SMIL is quite useful, but you should be aware that Microsoft has been quite forthright that they will not support SMIL in Internet Explorer. They don't want to support a second declarative animation model, the first being CSS Animations[1]. CSS Animations does have some problems, namely at the moment you can only animate style properties (things that you can set using the 'style' attribute). You cannot animate attributes (such as rectangle 'width'). This is suppose to be resolved at some point.
Having said that, the other browsers do support SMIL and SMIL is not at risk of being dropped from SVG 2 (as was SVG fonts last week). (Although, I know of at least one Chrome developer who might be happy to see SMIL go.) If there is enough demand from designers for SMIL, Microsoft has been known to change its mind (they weren't going to implement SVG filters at first). But this is someone of a chicken and egg problem. There is the "FakeSmile" JavaScript library that can be used with IE so lacking native support in IE may not be that big of a deal.[2]
There is precedence for Inkscape to lead the way. I've had one person who has been around SVG for a long time tell me that without Inkscape SVG would not now be part of HTML5.
BTW, I have a page where I created the same animation using SMIL, CSS Animations, and JavaScript.[3] Note that browser support for declarative animation, either via SMIL or CSS Animations is full of little quirks so the tests may or may not work correctly depending on which version of which browser you use.
Tav
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-animations/ [2] http://leunen.me/fakesmile/ [3] http://tavmjong.free.fr/SVG/ANIMATION/
Should IE's lack of support prevent Inkscape from incorporating SMIL?
There should be some consensus on this.
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 15:28 -0600, Susan Spencer wrote:
There should be some consensus on this.
No, Inkscape has never targeted browser support specifically before and Internet Explorer has never been a good target for developers.
Even if we only have an mpeg output, it would be useful to plenty of people. The borwser output is a bonus that browser makers can make good.
Martin,
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 16:57 -0500, Martin Owens wrote:
On Sat, 2013-11-30 at 15:28 -0600, Susan Spencer wrote:
There should be some consensus on this.
No, Inkscape has never targeted browser support specifically before and Internet Explorer has never been a good target for developers.
True, IE has been especially painful for website developers. The reality, though, for most website developers is that they must still support IE. They may be a good source for funding so it might pay to keep them in mind.
Even if we only have an mpeg output, it would be useful to plenty of people.
I agree.
BTW, there is interest in steaming SVG animations on the web.[1]
The borwser output is a bonus that browser makers can make good.
It would be interesting to see if both SMIL and CSS Animations can be supported with the same infrastructure.
Tav
[1] http://concolato.wp.mines-telecom.fr/2013/10/24/streaming-of-svg-animations-...
Hello Tavmjong,
Saturday, November 30, 2013, 10:07:48 PM, you wrote:
I personally think SMIL is quite useful, but you should be aware that Microsoft has been quite forthright that they will not support SMIL in Internet Explorer. They don't want to support a second declarative animation model, the first being CSS Animations[1].
To be clear, what they said is that they will not support *two incompatible models* and at the time they saw more call for CSS animations (for HTML/CSS), thus they would not ass SMIL animation support.
The work on Web Animations, which harmonises the two models into two expressions of one underlying model, removes that objection. I discussed that with a Microsoft representative at the recent TPAC meeting and he thought this made all the difference.
So, never say never.
Hi Chris,
On Mon, 2013-12-02 at 20:00 +0100, Chris Lilley wrote:
Hello Tavmjong,
Saturday, November 30, 2013, 10:07:48 PM, you wrote:
I personally think SMIL is quite useful, but you should be aware that Microsoft has been quite forthright that they will not support SMIL in Internet Explorer. They don't want to support a second declarative animation model, the first being CSS Animations[1].
To be clear, what they said is that they will not support *two incompatible models* and at the time they saw more call for CSS animations (for HTML/CSS), thus they would not ass SMIL animation support.
Thanks for the clarification.
The work on Web Animations, which harmonises the two models into two expressions of one underlying model, removes that objection. I discussed that with a Microsoft representative at the recent TPAC meeting and he thought this made all the difference.
Good to hear!
So, never say never.
I never would.
Tav
participants (4)
-
Chris Lilley -
Martin Owens -
Susan Spencer -
Tavmjong Bah