W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2004

Re: SVG 1.2 tiny

From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:41:13 +0200
Message-ID: <1195056611.20041027224113@w3.org>
To: James Bentley <James.Bentley@guideworkstv.com>
Cc: www-svg@w3.org

On Wednesday, October 27, 2004, 8:13:36 PM, James wrote:

JB> I think the animation reasoning still holds. It is certainly easier to
JB> accomplish some types of animation
JB> when you don't have to animate several attributes.

Okay, how about this: The vast majority of animated SVG content has the
graphical assets authored in one place (an illustration tool, a program
that generates SVG from other data, etc) and animation added in a second
step (hand authoring, an animation tool, etc).

For the first stage, few people are writing the numbers in their path
elements in a text editor and hand calculator.

For the second stage, hand authoring is still common, if only to
generate a template that is later re-used in an automated manner.

Sometimes the two stages are combined in one tool.

JB> -----Original Message-----
JB> From: www-svg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-svg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of
JB> Marc Verstaen
JB> Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 12:02 PM
JB> To: www-svg@w3.org
JB> Subject: Re: SVG 1.2 tiny

JB> Robin Berjon wrote:

>> Keep in mind that a vast majority of SVG content is hand-authored,

JB> Really? From what I seen presented during the last SVG Open, this is clearly
JB> not the case. For proof of concepts, perhaps, any serious design job: I
JB> don't think so.

JB> Marc

JB> Marc Verstaen
JB> CEO Beatware Inc.,
JB> tel:  650 556 7903
JB> cell: 650 274 3883

 Chris Lilley                    mailto:chris@w3.org
 Chair, W3C SVG Working Group
 Member, W3C Technical Architecture Group
Received on Wednesday, 27 October 2004 20:41:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:03 UTC