- From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:34:56 +1100
- To: "Levantovsky, Vladimir" <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
- CC: Leonard Rosenthol <lrosenth@adobe.com>, "public-svgopentype@w3.org" <public-svgopentype@w3.org>
On 4/02/13 1:26 PM, Levantovsky, Vladimir wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that this approach would
> require that both the static view of the glyph and the first frame of
> its animated version must be identical. I don't think it is a
> reasonable assumption and is also one that would be very limiting
> from a design perspective.
That's not the case, since there is a difference between not applying
animation elements at all versus rendering the glyph at time 0s. For
example:
<g glyphid="1">
<circle cx="10" cy="10" r="5">
<animate attributeName="r" values="0; 10; 0" dur="2s"
repeatCount="indefinite"/>
</circle>
</g>
For non-animated rendering situations, the circle would have radius 5,
but in animated rendering situations the first frame of the animation
would have radius 0.
> P.S. Are you going to discuss both proposals at the meeting (yours
> and the one that was previously brought up by Adobe)? I wish this had
> been announced in advance so that more interested parties could take
> part in the discussion.
Sorry about that; I only recently had time to put something together.
Dirk tells me that Sairus will call in to our meeting. We do not need
to make any decisions this week -- it is more just to publicise our
version of the proposal, and for us as a group to look at the
differences between the two. I'm hopeful we'll be able to resolve the
differences. :)
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 02:35:25 UTC