interactive SMIL being dropped by CSS (and thence, presumably by all 'fringe' working groups, including SVG) FW: new feature request

I bring this to your attention since some of you, like me have written applications that make use of SMIL and interactive SMIL. And some of you, like me, have written books based on W3C standards (like SVG1.1) which include SMIL and interactive SMIL.

To make a long story short, I was arguing SVG capabilities be extended by allowing <img> in HTML to allow mouseevents to trigger SMIL so that sites like Wikipedia, FaceBook, Twitter, and Ello to allow instructional/interactive SVG to be uploaded by endusers without fear of contamination by 3rd party script. I am told that the people who actually seem to be in charge of SVG now (the CSS working group) have decided to make obsolete interactive SMIL. I don't know of a more major setback to the progress of SVG than when people decided to make obsolete SVG1.2.

I am very unhappy with this, if in fact, this is the consensus of the SVG Working Group.

That in a few brief strokes those who apparently do not understand the merits of declarative programming can invalidate a decade's worth of work by hundreds of people is extremely troublesome to me.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Tab Atkins Jr. 
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2015 4:23 PM
To: ddailey
Cc: Philip Rogers; Dirk Schulze; Thomas O Smailus; Boris Zbarsky; www-svg
Subject: Re: new feature request

On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 12:52 PM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Tab Atkins Jr." replied
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Philip Rogers <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Has the SVGWG considered specing the differences in <img> vs 
>> <object>? It is not obvious to users that there are large differences between the two.
>
> Yes, this is the Integration spec: <https://svgwg.org/specs/integration/>.
> Several things aren't clear to me about this discussion:
>
> a) I was thinking that the reason Social Media and Wikipedia might not 
> want to allow user uploads of SVG into <object>s is because they don't 
> want to trust 3rd party script
> b) it seems like the only danger associated with SVG SMIL/SVG interactive SMIL is when one listens to keystrokes. Suppose <img src="file.svg"> allowed mousedown mouseover mouseout onclick, mouseup etc. but no keypress events. Is there any danger then? The pedagogical objectives that make SVG SMIL cool are then not harmful.
>
> that was the reason for the request but maybe I am missing something. I get the feeling though that the people saying just use <object> if you want interactivity are missing the basic point here.

Running script in <img> is out of the question, so we won't get a full document context regardless; adding in enough plumbing to handle interactive SMIL (when we're rapidly dropping it in the first place) is almost certainly not worth the engineering effort.

~TJ





------------------------------------
Posted by: "David Dailey" <[email protected]>
------------------------------------

-----
To unsubscribe send a message to: [email protected]
-or-
visit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/svg-developers and click "edit my membership"
----