W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > April to June 2012

Re: [css3-transforms] neutral element for addition - by animation

From: Brian Birtles <birtles@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 16:18:14 +0900
Message-ID: <4FCDB2B6.6030806@gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
CC: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
(2012/06/05 13:50), Dirk Schulze wrote:
> Even so. I strongly suggest reading the whole thread.

Hi Dirk,

Sorry, my "I agree" was more about Cyril's suggestion regarding the 
neutral element, not his comment about the thread being too long.

I did, in fact, skim the thread and even responded to why 
animateTransform (or more to the point the SVG 1.2 Tiny Test Suite) 
should not have taken the approach it did. However, before sending, I 
removed that section since I didn't think it productive to the discussion.

Cyril and I are on the same page here. The only difference is a matter
of notation. I see from your comments here too that we agree as well.

> we get an animation from scale(1) to scale(2). That is something that
> most authors may assume at the beginning. And I would agree that we
> should go that way. But it is against the definition of SMIL
> animation. See previous mails.

Yes, the point of my previous mail was to say we don't need to be bound 
by SMIL here.

The idea that SMIL and specifically animate and set, just work on 
unitless numbers[1][2] has never been true of SVG (even version 1.0 
allowed animate to target colors). As it stands today, you have to wrap 
up many data types before using them in the animation engine which is 
why it's possible to implement the behaviour for by animation we seem to 
agree on without touching the SMIL engine.

But perhaps the concern here is how to specify it?

Best regards,


[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/smil-animation/#AnimationFunctionValueDetails
Received on Tuesday, 5 June 2012 07:18:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:47 UTC