Talk:SVG animation

Animation not working in FF3.6

animation doesn't work for current firefox 3.6 release... in current chrome 4.1, it works fine--147.251.208.232 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

easy answer: as you can see in jeff schillers support table of the svg support, ff 3.6 has no svg animation support enabled (the big red bar in the middle that makes ~20% of the whole testcases). ff3.6 doesn't support it. maybe 3.7 or 4.0 ;) mabdul 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes be Happy!
FireFox 4 Beta seems to support the animation now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitester2501 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

SWF look alike

My comments are that it looks just like a flash file. Ezekiel! ^{Talk to meh.See what I'm doin'.} 17:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Except there don't seem to be any authoring tools for it (at least for SVG + SMIL). JMP EAX (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring by user Saukgp

Saukgp added a link to SVG – Tutorial on SVG files image, animation and editor. However, this tutorial doesn't deal with SVG animation and mentions it only in the title. It should therefore be deleted. Such deletion was indeed effected by Modernist, but they were reverted by the original editor, Saukgp. This behaviour is an act of edit warring. Please comment here to settle the matter. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 14:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I found the article informative and the subject directly deals with SVG files, editors and animation. The topic also talks about different libraries used for SVG animation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saukgp (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Informative. Well, the page doesn't inform readers about SVG animation which is the sole topic of this Wikipedia article. If you have read the tutorial you will remember that it expressly states: "We have covered the basic and huge part of available resources in this tutorial, in our next tutorial, we will focus more on stuffs like animation, effects, filters etc." So you better wait for the next tutorial to be published and then judge if it provides information not yet covered in this article. — Is it O.K. if I delete your link from the article? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: You seem to have a similar issue going on at Minimalism, also with user Modernist, and also involving links to cssbest.com/blog/. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree EL should not be used. In addition, WP is not about tutorials. Glrx (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Acid3 requirement for SMIL

The article currently says "any browser that aims to pass the Acid3 web standards test as this requires SMIL support for tests 75 and 76"; however, the test itself contains (immediately prior to test 75): "// PARTS COMMENTED OUT FOR 2011 UPDATE - SVG Fonts, SVG SMIL animation, and XLink have met with some implementor malaise even amongst those that shipped them". I can't quickly find any secondary source for this, though the primary source is pretty clear. --Gsnedders (talk) 14:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SVG animation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100307035302/http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/animating-your-svg/ to http://dev.opera.com/articles/view/animating-your-svg/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 11 and up: toggles on click interactivity in pure SVG?

@Glrx and Dbachmann: Is it possible, when working with pure SVG (no Javascript et cetera), to have a user, on Internet Explorer 11 and up (without any further browser plug-ins) click on one part of an SVG, and to thus toggle the visibility of another part of the SVG? If so, could you please create a MWE that demonstrate the possibility? Please also answer at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/51199162/internet-explorer-11-and-up-toggles-on-click-interactivity-in-pure-svg Vincent Mia Edie Verheyen (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• SVG logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Years of collaboration SYMM and SVG

Okay, I was there during the development of the SMIL Animation module, which was used in SVG for many years. In the current version of the SVG animation article, it states: "The SYMM Working Group, in collaboration with the SVG Working Group, has authored the SMIL Animation specification, which represents a general-purpose XML animation feature set." This is indeed correct, and I will cite this list of reliable sources:

• https://www.w3.org/standards/history/SMIL2 - this document shows the publication of working drafts between August 1999 and August 2001 for the SMIL 2.0 specification. That was the period of time that the SYMM working group was working with the SVG working group.
• https://www.w3.org/TR/smil-animation/ — this document was the portion of the SMIL 2.0 specification that was designed to be embedded in other XML documents (like SVG). The editors (Patrick Schmitz and Aaron Cohen) were continuously active particpants in the working group that published the SMIL 2.0 specification, and were heavily involved in many of the drafts between 1999 and 2001.
• https://www.w3.org/AudioVideo/#news — the "Past News" section of the "AudioVideo" charter for the W3C has plenty of historical reading material.

I can answer many questions about the history of SMIL from 1996 until 2001. I can also answer other questions, but 1996 to 2001 was when I was really paying attention. The years after that will require other living sources, but there are plenty of those folks around. Regarding the SYMM<=>SVG working group collaboration, I'm reasonably sure it started in 1999, but I don't know when it ended. -- RobLa (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

unlucky shape

To show an object rotating, that object should not be a circle. OK, it's not rotating around its center, but its not visually clear if the object is really rotating or only moving along a round path. Please choose another shape, like a rectangle. 45.135.68.194 (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a fair point, thanks. I'll put it in my backlog. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 15:21, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Why remove blood-circulatory-system animation?

This image (File:circulatory_system_SMIL.svg) was included in the gallery of the SVG animation page prior to March 2023 (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SVG_animation&oldid=1136559959)

It would seem that File:circulatory_system_SMIL.svg was removed from SVG animation because of a controversy that's a bit unclear to me. If the image is truly misleading in some way, then commons:File:Circulatory system SMIL.svg should be deleted from Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. However, the image is still seeing widespread use, and looks accurate to me. The controversy seems to involve the blood circulation of an unborn fetus, which has little to do with this diagram. More to the point, this diagram is a fantastic illustration using SVG animation on Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if someone else weighed in on this topic. -- RobLa (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I have readded the image that I erroneously removed earlier. It would not be a correct representation of fetal circulation but otherwise is just fine. Please accept my apologies. --TadejM ^{my talk} 23:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for putting it back, TadejM, and I appreciate the apology. The diagram is a great illustration of the circulatory system, and it's a great use of SVG animation, so I was sad to see it removed from the article. I didn't make it to Wikimania 2016, but it looks like User:Cmglee has a fantastic collection of animated SVG images (here: wm2016:User:Cmglee) which may be worth adding to the article if (and when) either of us finds the time to figure out which images are appropriate for the SVG animation article. -- RobLa (talk) 07:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi RobLa, Many thanks for your kind compliments. Indeed, I chose it as it demonstrates several SVG animation features in a realistic use-case.

@TadejM: The image doesn't apply to fetuses, of course, as the placenta takes the place of the lungs. The caption can specify this if needed. Common sense should prevail, though. One could argue that someone on life support or with an atrial septal defect (hole in the heart) may not have the exact system shown, and specifying every possible condition is overkill: the image applies to a typical human.

Regarding deleting misleading images in general, it would be better to initially question its accuracy on its or its article's talk page (perhaps drawing attention to it on a relevant Wikipedia:Reference desk), in case the allegation is incorrect. If it is indeed wrong, message the creator and others who have edited it to give them an opportunity to fix the error. Simply deleting an image

1. Loses resources that could simply be amended
2. Discourages the creator from further contributing

My Wikimania 2016 work is a little outdated by now. Since then, others and I have uploaded other dynamic SVG to commons:Category:Animated SVG files and commons:Category:Interactive SVG, and their children categories. Feel free to use anything appropriate.

Cheers,
cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 15:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed the disputed unreferenced diagram from the article and put the relevant disputed tag on the file. It was urgent to do so as it is about biomedical information, which requires special care due to its high sensitivity. For this reason, it is better to remove disputed information without undue delay. I'm glad that we have now resolved this matter to our mutual satisfaction. Anyway, per WP:PROVEIT, a source still needs to be provided on the image description page. --TadejM ^{my talk} 17:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

@TadejM: I've added a reference to File:circulatory_system_SMIL.svg. Can you please restore the diagram to where it was previously used? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

P.S. I've also clarified that it applies only to a typical non-fetal non-embryonic human. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I have already restored it where I removed it (in this article). --TadejM ^{my talk} 18:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)