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 
>animateMotion.

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.

Olaf
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 11:49:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:47 GMT