I'll see if I can get the MDN page updated. SMIL usage has grown to 2.0% of page loads (link <https://chromestatus.com/metrics/feature/timeline/popularity/501>).
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 6:37:36 AM UTC-8 Lorand Zudor wrote: > 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 however, most of such threads and posts are deprecated & outdated 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/bb99b5ca-d1e0-4b2e-8162-aecbf2dedb22n%40chromium.org.
