Comments on: Shenanigans! on Webkit SMIL

By: Mark Dowling

Mark Dowling — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 12:59:49 +0000

Comparing where the gaps are in the Schiller report, I wonder would Adobe be amenable to releasing their more or less abandoned SVG 3 and 6PR plugins’ code to Mozilla in a similar way to the Tamarin co-operation.

By: stelt

stelt — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:50:06 +0000

I think nobody ever thought sockets should be part of a graphics spec. Some however thought sockets would be great for many applications using those graphics. The difference is mostly a (wise or not) strategy to get a working combination implementation in the hands of content developers as far as i know.

I’m glad all the serious browser builders are now ‘fighting’ over SVG implementations however: competition on open standards implementations is good news to most content developers.

By: To: Dave Hyatt

To: Dave Hyatt — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:28:36 +0000

Dave, is it possible for you WebKitters to have a decent page with exact information about what is/isn’t supported in WebKit?

http://trac.webkit.org/projects/webkit/wiki/SpecSupport

By: DigDug

DigDug — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:53:43 +0000

Hasn’t IE had some support for SMIL since version 5.5? Seems like its had little to no impact on the web at all.

By: Dave Hyatt

Dave Hyatt — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:08:58 +0000

If we shipped an Acid 3-compliant Safari with a score of 5/116 on a SMIL compliance test, then I think “shenanigans” would be an appropriate thing to say.

However, simply having a publicly available nightly build in which we have re-enabled a feature that we were already working on prior to Acid 3… where’s the problem?

By: Dave Hyatt

Dave Hyatt — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:02:59 +0000

We will be adding more SMIL support. The implementation is just in the beginning stages.