From: Benjamin Himpel <bhimpel@yahoo.com>

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:58 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <20030122205858.36314.qmail@web41415.mail.yahoo.com>

To: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>

Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 12:58:58 -0800 (PST)

Message-ID: <20030122205858.36314.qmail@web41415.mail.yahoo.com>

To: Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org>

Cc: www-svg@w3.org

Dean, Thanks for your quick answer. I would strongly suggest to rethink and discuss this point for future specifications (and maybe get some advice from a mathematician affiliated with W3C). If possible "singularities" are the only reason, then, why should the animation for scale from 1 to -1, or even worse from 1,1 to -1,-1 be allowed? Simply, because they make geometrical sense. In the same way any path (including any parametrization) of transformation matrices can make sense to some people (while it does not seem necessary or sensible to others). Think of somebody trying to visualize (in 2D) turning a page (viewed not from top (scale) or the side (rotate), but e.g. from a 45 degree angle). A different animation, corresponding to the straight line path (with constant speed) of transformation matrices can be easily understood geometrically: each point in an object (transformed by the first matrix) follows a straight line (with constant speed) to the image under the transformation by the second matrix. It is simply not true, that most animations can be constructed by sums of animations for primitive transformations. Just try constructing one of the above examples of animations (in all generality) using animated sums of primitive transformation. While any transformation matrix can be easily decomposed (in several different ways) into primitive transformations, doing that for the whole animation (i.e. taking into account all times), is much more difficult if not impossible. One big problem is, that you cannot control the parametrization for the animations. Even if it is possible to find such a decomposition of animations, it would be very inefficient for a large number of animations being done at the same time. The only option, a person trying to animate one of the above examples in SVG has, to manually find the transformation for each frame. In any case, having the option of choosing any path of transformation matrices (including its parametrization), would be extremely useful and would make life so a lot easier. I do not believe, it is much harder to implement this than it is to implement primitive animations (rotation, skew, translation). SVG has a big potential as a tool for mathematicians (especially geometers). But without generalizing the specification for animation, the animation part of SVG will not suffice. A possible way to define parametrizations could be <animateTransform attributeName="transform" attributeType="XML" type="matrix" path="1-t,t^2,t^2,1-t,5t+3,2t-1" from="0" to="1" dur="5s" additive= "sum" fill="freeze"/> meaning you follow this path of transformation matrices from t=0 to t=1 with constant speed and duration 5 seconds. This would make a lot of people happy. Implementing this, would take some thought, but should be straightforward. (Already allowing polynomials would be great. Allowing other functions, like trigonometric functions and others, would be even better.) On a slightly different note, it does not become clear from the specification, how the animation is parametrized. Especially for sums, the parametrization is crucial. The parameters (e.g. the angle in case of rotation or skewing) for the transformations change linearly with respect to time, correct? (But would it not be great to allow arbitrary parametrizations...) Benjamin Himpel --- Dean Jackson <dean@w3.org> wrote: > Benjamin, > > I asked Jon Ferraiolo, the editor of the SVG 1.0 > specification > for the answer, since I couldn't remember. Here is > his answer: > > If you allow animation of an arbitrary matrix to > another arbitrary matrix, > there is a chance you can reach a singularity midway > through the animation. > To avoid this, we restricted animateTransform to > specify a single type of > transform (i.e., scale vs. rotate vs. translate > etc.). A content develop > can still achieve arbitrary matrix transforms via > the 'additive' feature > for animateTransform (where additive in this case > actually means matrix > multiplication). > > Dean > > On Sun, 19 Jan 2003, Benjamin Himpel wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > Why can one not use animateTransform together with > > matrix? Why does the specification not allow > > expressions like the following? > > > > <animateTransform attributeName="transform" > > attributeType="XML" > > type="matrix" from="1,0,0,1,0,0" to="2,3,1,2,1,1" > > dur="5s" > > additive="sum" fill="freeze"/> > > > > One could simply define this to be the animation, > > which follows the straight line between the two > > transformation matrices with constant speed. > > > > I found the following excerpt in some newsgroup, > but > > do not remember which: > > > > "Because of mathematical issues, we couldn't allow > > arbitrary matrics to be part of the animation > values. > > You can only animate primitive operations such as > > rotate, scale or translate. But you can define > > additive 'animateTransform' animations on the same > > 'transform' attribute in such a way that you can > > achieve most arbitrary matrix effects. > > > > Bottom line - you should be able to do just about > > everything you can do with a matrix using some > > combination of 'animateTransform' animations." > > > > I do not understand, what mathematical issues > would > > relevant here. As matter of fact mathematicians > would > > not mind to simply specify the path (including its > > parametrization) of transformation matrices > instead of > > the complicated and inefficient way of using > > compositions of animations for primitive > > transformations. Also it is much more difficult > than > > it seems, to find the _animated_ composition of > > primitive transformation which is equal to a > specified > > path (including parametrization) of transformation > > matrices. > > > > Does anybody have an answer to or comments about > any > > of this? > > > > Thanks, > > Ben > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up > now. > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.comReceived on Wednesday, 22 January 2003 15:59:30 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:46:55 UTC
*