W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > January 2011

Re: SVG animateMotion specification clarification request

From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 12:48:49 +0100
To: www-svg@w3.org, ken@svgmaker.com
Message-Id: <201101311248.50458.Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
Ken Stacey:

>animate-elem-53-t.svg is another example of inconsistency between the 
>spec wording and expected behavior wrt combining animateTransform and 

This is basically a draft about paced animation for path/point data.
Because there is no meaningful distance function for such paths, this
draft should be removed anyway - paced animations are explained
now in SVGT 1.2 and I think as well in the second edition draft for 1.1.

>Since I have built a lot of SVG SMIL generating code which assumes the 
>Opera/ASV behavior, I would vote for a change to the spec.  For me, it 
>seems more useful/intuitive to apply animateMotion before 
>animateTransform. But I'm not sure that is because it is genuinely more 
>intuitive or because I'm used to it being that way.

You mean for the previous example MP * MR * RT * AS?

Something like RT * MP * MR * AS does not fit to SMIL/SVG at all,
this would be very odd - or this means basically to define that 
animateMotion is not supplemental to animateTransform, more an alternative 
way to provide an animation of the transform attribute with only translation
and rotation - but then the order of begin times and the order within the
source code of animateMotion and animateTransform becomes important
as well - including the conplication to indicate them to be additive, if it
is required that the later one does not replace the earlier one.

Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 11:49:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 March 2017 09:47:23 UTC