81–84 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
W3C should have a rule that a web browser which does not intend to support the standard may not call itself a "web browser".
Those web browsers would probably also not support your new standard, and continue to call themselves web browsers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jesus, it's 2018 and they still can't even figure out how to implement animated PNGs? Real browsers had this 10 years ago. What the hell is wrong with Microsoft? Are they really just so incompetent, or is there a more insidious business reason why they don't want more animated formats on the web?
SMIL is something quite different and much more complex, than "animated PNGs"
Excellence! The README reads: "I really like the clean look of SVG animations and I also wanted to see how this solution would hold out against other attempts at terminal recording such as asciinema." But how does it compare? Is the size smaller, is it more efficient?
Animated SVG animations (really just an svg element + animated css) are significantly smaller, more efficient, and crisper than equivalent GIF animations. I wrote about the difference between the two here: https://hackernoon.com/presenting-your-code-beautifully-fdba... As I explained in the above article, this is already possible with asciinema + svg-term-cli ( https://github.com/marionebl/svg-term-cli ). The one dow…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what if the other vendors do have an implementation?
This is in the context of an upstream comment (softly) claiming that now browser has 100% SVG support. I think sometimes this is because the full spec is infeasible to implement, at least in a performant manner, and rather than implement a fully compliant but slow mess, they implement a partially compliant but usefully fast subset. Providing a reference implementation allows a standards body to learn early that what…