SVG SMIL news from Google

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

SVG SMIL news from Google

David Dailey

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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SVG SMIL news from Google

Rick-2


On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 3:46 PM, David Dailey <[hidden email]> 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 am too, kind of.  I have apps that use SMIL.

 

I thought that others here might be interested to know.



Yes, thank you David.  This takes the pressure off deprecating yet another useful SVG feature although I suppose I'll still have to do it.
 

 

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




--
Any coward can sit in his home and criticize a pilot for flying into a
mountain in a fog.  But I would rather, by far, die on a mountainside
than in bed.
        -- Charles Lindbergh

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SVG SMIL news from Google

Amelia Bellamy-Royds
In reply to this post by David Dailey
This is good news, even if it's only a stay of execution for now.

A note to all, a few weeks back the SVG WG resolved [1] to publish a proper working draft of the stand-alone SVG Animation Elements specification [2].  This replaces the animation chapter from SVG 1.1, instead of including an animation chapter in the core SVG 2 spec.

There are a few technical clean-ups that need to happen first (the spec markup currently doesn't play nice with the new W3C stylesheets) but that is the first step towards moving forward on modernizing SMIL-style SVG Animations and making them fully compatible with the Web Animations framework.

Philip, in your note on the forum you mention that next steps include "Proposing removal of pieces of SMIL that don’t enjoy widespread use."  We'll keep an eye out for new issues tagged "SVG Animations" in the SVGWG repo [3].  However, if the Chrome team is devoting resources to identifying specific issues with SVG Animations, I'm sure that Brian Birtles would appreciate any help in cleaning up that spec and polishing it off; he has understandably put in on the back burner this past year since the original Chrome deprecation announcement.

~ABR

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: SVG SMIL news from Google

Alex Danilo-4
In reply to this post by David Dailey
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 <[hidden email]> 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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: SVG SMIL news from Google

David Dailey

Hi Alex,

 

Yes, and thanks for reminding us of the community spirit that helped get SVG as a standard “standardized” and thanks to the Microsoft folks who helped move it along!

 

Let’s all motivate support for web animations!

 

David

 

From: Alex Danilo [mailto:[hidden email]]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2016 11:17 AM
To: David Dailey
Cc: www-svg; Philip Rogers
Subject: 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 <[hidden email]> 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