W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: <animateMotion> specification clarification

From: Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:24:53 +0200
To: www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <op.vkgnbp1tgeuyw5@localhost>
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 10:42:08 +0200, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>  
wrote:

> Alex Danilo:
>> Something for the WG to argue. I'd say child <svg>'s should be  
>> transformable since
>> that is far more likely to be useful to content authors. You could use  
>> an <image> and
>> reference the child SVG that way and it would transform, so the  
>> restriction on <svg>
>> should never be needed since you can rotate it too.
>>
>> So if you can apply current scale, translation and current rotation to  
>> the root SVG
>> via the DOM there doesn't seem to be a good argument to limit the  
>> transform for
>> child <svg> does it?
>
> Agreed.  I sometimes find myself adding an extra <g> as a parent of an
> <svg> element (which I want due to setting up a viewport so I can use
> percentages) just so I can transform it.  It seems unnecessary to me.

Yes, having 'transform' apply at least on child <svg> elements would be  
quite useful. It would be similar to how 'x' and 'y' on the svg element  
are specialcased.
/Erik

-- 
Erik Dahlstrom, Core Technology Developer, Opera Software
Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
Personal blog: http://my.opera.com/macdev_ed
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 11:25:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:46 GMT