RE: About the comment on animate-elem-224-t.svg

Hello Dr. Hoffmann,

Thanks for bringing this to our attention. As you may have noticed we discussed the issue during our last telcon and agree with you that the test is fine and warrants a further review.

I have an action to e-mail this fact to you, and Tony has an action to do a thorough review of the test...and I see that Tony has beaten me to the punch :)

Anyway, thanks again for catching this and for making the test in the first place.

Take care,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:public-svg-wg-
>] On Behalf Of Dr. Olaf Hoffmann
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2008 1:11 PM
> To:
> Subject: About the comment on animate-elem-224-t.svg
> Hello group,
> the comment on animate-elem-224-t.svg in
> I cannot understand.
> It tests the combination/behaviour of two to animations
> for one attribute in the same time interval. Due to
> SMIL rules this results in a quadratic path as trajectory.
> The combination is choosen in such a way, that it
> is relatively simple to calulate the quadratic path
> the animations result in - there is no simpler path for
> two to-animations combined in such a way.
> I think, for other combinations it is slightly more
> difficult to calculate the resulting trajectory, therefore
> this is already a basic test for to-animations
> (I already have more complex with restarting the
> animations within active duration, changing priorities in
> the SMIL timing sandwich model, where it is harder
> to calculate the trajectory). Even more
> for four to-animations for one attribute, the resulting
> trajectory is a fourth order curve, not even exactly
> available in SVG, therefore the combination of two
> animations resulting in a quadratic path is already a
> nice and simple choice to check the correct behaviour
> precisely.

Received on Friday, 30 May 2008 18:49:00 UTC