W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > July 2006

Re: animateTransform with to-animation

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 11:12:13 +1000
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20060709011213.GA22094@port.mcc.id.au>

Bjoern Hoehrmann:
> The Working Group's response was "parts of the smil animation features
> are not trivial to capture ... Although you might find the definition
> confusing we believe it is correct and will leave it as is." I have,
> quite naturally, registered my formal objection to this decision.

Hmm, yes, your issue does seem to have the same underlying cause of
confusion as mine (that it’s unclear how underlying values are to be
used in all cases).  I agree it needs defining.

Dr. Olaf Hoffmann:
> as far as I have seen, there is no special note about
> to-animations in any SVG-specification, but it is always
> mentioned, that one has to look into SMIL. Because
> transform and other attributes animatable with 
> animateTransform are additive, simply the special
> rules from SMIL for to-animations are applicable.
> This means, the rule has to be applied for each
> component of the transform matrix - this is the
> only way I could work, I can see and as defined 
> in SMIL. This is not difficult, but I think, up to now 
> any viewer is wrong with this ;o)

I think the problem, though, with using the components of the underlying
value’s matrix is that there is no canonical way to decompose it.  In my
example, the “matrix(2,0,0,2,10,10)” could be decomposed as
“translate(10,10) scale(2)” or “scale(2) translate(5,5)”.  Which
translate component would be used as the one to animate from?

-- 
Cameron McCormack, http://mcc.id.au/
	xmpp:heycam@jabber.org  ▪  ICQ 26955922  ▪  MSN cam@mcc.id.au
Received on Sunday, 9 July 2006 01:12:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:35 GMT