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

Re: SVG animateMotion specification clarification request

From: Ken Stacey <ken@svgmaker.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:02:30 +1000
Message-ID: <4D46CF06.4070605@svgmaker.com>
To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
CC: www-svg@w3.org
Olaf:

>> 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?

I'm not sure what you are asking.  I meant that I am used to ASV and 
Opera working like RT * MP * MR * AS.

>
> Something like RT * MP * MR * AS does not fit to SMIL/SVG at all,
> this would be very odd -

Odd as it may seem, this is how ASV and Opera have appeared to implement it.

> 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 itis required that the later one does not replace the earlier
> one.

I think all it means is that animateTransform is supplemental to 
animateMotion.

I agree that giving equal status to animateMotion and animateTransform 
does introduce some complications.

> Olaf
>

Ken
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 15:03:20 GMT

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