The Graphics Interchange Format is not intended as a platform for animation | Hacker News Reader

The Graphics Interchange Format is not intended as a platform for animation

w3.org

19 pointsnstj17 comments

This breaks the site guidelines, which ask: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html:

Cherry-picking one detail from an article is editorializing. If you want to say what you think is important in an article, please do so in a comment, where your view is on a level playing field with everyone else's. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Another thing you could do is write your own article that goes into why this is interesting, and submit that instead. That might be the best option. You could always link to the original article from your post.

Yeah, that is one lost cause

I have often thought about how vector graphics should be extended to animations: instead of defining curves in 2 dimensions, define curved surfaces in 3, where the third is simply time.

I wouldn't mind conditionals etc, as long as it is held turing incomplete.

SVG supports animation.

Flash supports animation.

You can define basic shapes in CSS and use its own animation capabilities.

I never new SVG supports animation!

is it scripted and turing complete like Flash?

the 3 methods of SVG animation from wikipedia are either through scripting, or limited transforms as far as I can tell.

I meant defining the animation in as geometry in a higherdimensional space.

Screwdrivers are not intended to be prybars. Jelly roll pans are not intended to bake cookies. The Fender Bassman is not intended to be a guitar amp. A TV tuner chip is not intended to be a general-purpose software-defined-radio receiver. &c....

But unlike prybars, cookie trays, guitar amps, SDR, ... there is no minimalist, bloatless, turing incomplete, popular, open standard for animations.

Yet it has proven functional for certain animations for years with entire websites devoted to the file format. At some point you let it be what it is.

Needs a [1990] tag

Sadly, there wasn't a better alternative. Especially on mobile.

HTML5 requires a tap, a gif doesn't. I think that's what made all the difference in the world

Have there been attempts at alternatives that address the actual use cases for GIF in the wild?

Animated PNG (APNG) seems like a decent alternative: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/APNG

Based on that article, once Edge moves to Chromium based all the major browsers (except IE) will have APNG support.

For folks more in the know: are there any political issues that would prevent more widespread adoption? Or is it just that most folks are already on GIF and it's "good enough".

I suppose GIF being in the common vernacular might make things tougher as well.

It also was intended to have its name pronounced like "JIF", but you know what happens to intentions.

“The street finds its own uses for things”

-Burning Chrome

And yet it moves.

It's not intended to be pronounced with a hard G either, but that doesn't stop people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com