- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 15:05:08 -0700
- To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>
- CC: "L. David Baron" <dbaron@dbaron.org>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
I opened a bug report to track this request. https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=18366 Greetings, Dirk On Jul 23, 2012, at 9:22 AM, Chris Marrin wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2012, at 5:51 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote: > >> On Thursday 2012-07-19 16:54 -0700, Dirk Schulze wrote: >>> Do I understand your point correctly, that you just want the >>> affected transformation functions to get interpolated as matrices? >> >> Yes, rather than forcing the entire list to be interpolated as a >> single matrix. > > You're complicating the rules by doing this. If I have: > > rotate(...) scale(...) translate(...) > scale(...) rotate(...) translate(...) > > Do you do two separate matrix animations? Taking that to its logical conclusion, you could end up doing a dozen expensive matrix animations for a long list of unmatched primitives. > > Or do you combine unmatching primitives next to each other? That might be a better approach, but it might get confusing for long primitive lists. > > We also talked about adding an identity() primitive to make it easier to match up primitives. Identity() would match a primitive of any type. Was that ever done? > > ----- > ~Chris Marrin > cmarrin@apple.com >
Received on Monday, 23 July 2012 22:08:43 UTC