- From: Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 22:41:13 +0200
- 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