Thanks Lorand for updating the MDN page in this commit <https://github.com/mdn/content/commit/b68049936ef4d1328e07065eafc87e3e43e826af> .
On Wednesday, December 20, 2023 at 1:14:48 PM UTC-8 Philip Rogers wrote: > 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 however, most of such threads and posts are deprecated & outdated 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/d9c63bd1-f110-4b56-8701-02a6577232b0n%40chromium.org.
