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, <[email protected]> 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* >>>> [email protected], [email protected] >>>> >>>> *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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/d4b55f3c-382d-4f65-bb2a-bb133f347947n%40chromium.org.
