Hi Chris, Sorry for the late reply, noticed this message only now & by mistake.
Exactly - SMIL was actually never deprecated, yet many informamtion one can find online (mainly this thread, linked from MDN's SMIL documentation <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/SVG/SVG_animation_with_SMIL>) points toward the direction that it was or will be in the near future, however, most of such threads and posts are deprecated & outdated themselves. To avoid further confusions raised (i.e. SVGator <https://www.svgator.com/help/getting-started/what-export-options-are-available> offers SVGs animated w/ JS and CSS yet SMIL was never implemented due to the deprecation warning) I'd better delete this thread - let me know what do You think On Wednesday, February 8, 2023 at 7:03:53 PM UTC+2 Chris Harrelson wrote: Hi Lorand, SMIL was not deprecated and there are no plans to do so. It's still a supported feature in Chromium. On Wed, Feb 8, 2023 at 9:02 AM Lorand Zudor <lorand...@gmail.com> wrote: 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+...@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 <https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/d/msgid/blink-dev/c79d315e-a293-474c-9ee1-87372c4c06a4n%40chromium.org?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> . -- 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/2ce33de0-7a91-44d1-ba42-6861a0f346c3n%40chromium.org.
