Hi There, Does anyone happen to know what's the status on this one..? Is it more like an abandoned thread...?
Best, - Lorand. On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 8:29:29 PM UTC+3 Mahdi Hosseinzadeh wrote: > One use case is how to replace the SMIL animations with CSS animations in > markdown files? > For example, GitHub *README.md* files or Stack Overflow post body. > > See this stackoverflow post <https://stackoverflow.com/a/69523392/8583692> > . > > On Wednesday, February 17, 2021 at 8:36:46 PM UTC+3:30 Andrea wrote: > >> Hello, >> i think that after some years it would useful to do new considerations: >> >> - SMIL is now supported in all major browsers: [1] >> - the Usage continues to increase and it's now > 1 % [2] >> - Last update of the polyfill is from 5/6 years ago [3] >> - Updates about W3C SVG Animations Level 2 [4] >> >> I read several websites that point towards this discussion about the ( >> future? ) deprecation of SMIL. >> So think it would be useful an updated referenced info about the support >> of SMIL for the SVG animations. >> Could you please write an update about the SMIL support? >> >> I personally think that now SMIL is a valid open standard for the SVG >> animations so for who builds projects with it, it's very important to have >> no worries about a possible future deprecation. >> >> Thank you. >> Andrea Monzini >> >> [1] https://caniuse.com/svg-smil >> [2] https://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/501 >> [3] https://github.com/ericwilligers/svg-animation >> [4] https://svgwg.org/specs/animations/ >> >> >> Il giorno mercoledì 17 agosto 2016 alle 19:52:10 UTC+2 Philip Rogers ha >> scritto: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> In the 15 months since we announced our intention to deprecate and >>> eventually remove SMIL, we’ve heard a variety of opinions from members of >>> the community. 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. >>> >>> We firmly believe that SMIL is not in the best long-term interests of >>> the open web platform for several reasons: >>> >>> - There is no clear path towards broad cross-browser support. >>> - The vendors which support SMIL have implementations that continue >>> to vary widely, even after more than a decade of support. >>> - There are high-quality cross-platform replacement features on the >>> horizon. >>> >>> However, your feedback has made it clear that removing SMIL today would >>> be taking away a feature that our community relies on. For example, the >>> most common use case of SMIL is to animate SVG content inside image tags. >>> While in theory CSS animations can animate this content, there are still >>> missing features and bugs on all platforms that make SMIL a better option >>> for now. For example, motion-path, path morphing, and the subset of SVG >>> properties for which animation is supported all vary between platforms and >>> browsers. >>> >>> Given these gaps in support, we'll instead proceed over the next few >>> months by: >>> >>> - Proposing removal of pieces of SMIL that don’t enjoy widespread >>> use. >>> - Improving our own CSS animations implementation. >>> - Filing bugs with browser vendors to help solidify their CSS >>> animations implementations. >>> - Continuing to support and promote modern alternatives like >>> motion-path and SVG 2. >>> >>> Additionally, before we pursue deprecation of SMIL further, we'll make >>> sure there's are automatic polyfill- and server-based solutions for any >>> content that relies on it. >>> >>> It’s the Chromium community that make this an awesome project to work >>> on. Thanks to everyone for your feedback and we look forward to hearing >>> from you into the future! >>> 😀😀 >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 1:59 PM, <a.sara....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I've been using SVG and SMIL recently and was planning to keep on using >>>> it from now on. What sold me on it was the ability of using Flash2SVG to >>>> create animations in Flash (proprietary) using a timeline, and export them >>>> to SVG. Visual authoring tools to create animations in CSS aren't great, >>>> and the time it takes to create them by hand is prohibitive. The added >>>> bonus of using SVG/SMIL is that the animation will fallback to a static >>>> frame for browsers that do not support it - IE, Edge. Yes, there is the >>>> need, as with CSS animations, to provide fallbacks to browsers that do not >>>> support SVG (IE9 and below, Android 2) but I feel that depending on the >>>> project's target this might not even be a consideration. >>>> >>>> SVG and SMIL are neat self contained files that can just be dropped on >>>> the page. They do require external JavaScript for animation but so do (or >>>> might) animations made with CSS. They are a realistic alternative to GIFs >>>> and as far as I'm aware they're the only sane option for having animations >>>> with morphing paths. >>>> >>>> In the absence of good authoring tools to create semi-complex CSS >>>> animations most designers/developers won't do it. There is no time or >>>> budget to be spent on a project - a regular project for a client with a >>>> small business - creating animations by hand. This has to be well resolved >>>> before deprecating SMIL. >>>> >>>> Please don't remove the support, at least until there are solid, well >>>> established alternatives. It seems we're moving backwards, not forward. >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Thursday, 30 April 2015 09:09:31 UTC+12, Philip Rogers wrote: >>>>> >>>>> *Primary eng emails* >>>>> ericwi...@chromium.org, p...@chromium.org >>>>> >>>>> *Summary* >>>>> We intend to deprecate SMIL animations in favor of CSS animations and >>>>> Web animations. >>>>> >>>>> *Motivation* >>>>> SMIL (pronounced “smile”) is a declarative animation system that >>>>> pioneered animations on the web and inspired both CSS animations and Web >>>>> animations. SMIL was never implemented in all major browsers which >>>>> limited >>>>> its use and spec development slowed after the last spec update in 2008. >>>>> We >>>>> would like to deprecate our SVG-specific SMIL implementation and >>>>> double-down on support and tooling of integrated HTML & SVG animation >>>>> models: CSS animations and Web animations. >>>>> >>>>> For content authors, browsers are actively improving the SVG animation >>>>> experience without SMIL. Microsoft just announced CSS animation support >>>>> for >>>>> SVG[1] which means authors can, for the first time, create an animated >>>>> SVG >>>>> image that works in all major browsers. Both Chromium[2] and Firefox[3] >>>>> are >>>>> actively developing CSS animation and Web animation tooling which will >>>>> work >>>>> for SVG content too. Eric Willigers has also created a SMIL polyfill >>>>> implemented entirely on the Web Animations API[5]. >>>>> >>>>> In terms of implementation, SMIL adds significant complexity to Blink. >>>>> In the past year we had two large efforts to rewrite the tear-off >>>>> implementation[4] (this supports ‘live’ animated values) as well as a >>>>> difficult integration with Oilpan. Deprecating SMIL will help us focus on >>>>> more general animation issues. >>>>> >>>>> *Compatibility Risk* >>>>> Medium-Low: Internet Explorer does not support SMIL which limited its >>>>> use for critical functionality. A concern is existing SMIL communities >>>>> and >>>>> content authors: we will use developer outreach to minimize risks here. >>>>> >>>>> *Alternative implementation suggestion for web developers* >>>>> There are three migration strategies: >>>>> 1) CSS animations. >>>>> 2) Web animations. >>>>> 3) Javascript polyfills such as Eric’s SMIL polyfill based on Web >>>>> animations or fakesmile. >>>>> >>>>> *Usage information from UseCounter* >>>>> Usage is low but stable at 0.0403% of pageviews[6]. The top SMIL user >>>>> is currently ign.com which only uses SMIL for a minor effect. Usage >>>>> of SMIL inside images (i.e., <img src=”...svg”>) where javascript >>>>> polyfills >>>>> will not work is lower at 0.006% of pageviews. >>>>> >>>>> *Entry on chromestatus.com <http://chromestatus.com>, crbug.com >>>>> <http://crbug.com>, or MDN* >>>>> http://crbug.com/482689 >>>>> >>>>> *Requesting approval to remove too?* >>>>> No, this is only an intent to deprecate and we plan to show a >>>>> deprecation warning in the console. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://status.modern.ie/csstransitionsanimationsforsvgelements >>>>> [2] https://twitter.com/ChromeDevTools/status/575327634319540224 >>>>> [3] >>>>> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2015/01/web-animation-tools-network-security-insights-font-inspector-improvements-and-more-firefox-developer-tools-episode-37/ >>>>> [4] >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bg7CUyUszqdwmENY3JX6_PoQD6uHRCNcRPJMlC4qlkw/view >>>>> [5] https://github.com/ericwilligers/svg-animation >>>>> [6] >>>>> https://www.chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/501 >>>>> >>>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "blink-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to blink-dev+unsubscr...@chromium.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c79d315e-a293-474c-9ee1-87372c4c06a4n%40chromium.org.
