- From: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:50:11 -0400
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org
2009/3/22 Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>: > Hello SVG WG, > > mainly a suggestion for this section: > > Consider the type matrix to be animatable too, this can My $0.02, I've noticed that doing transformations with matrices is noticeably more efficient than with lower level transforms, presumably because they are multiplied out to matrices anyway and that step is skipped. I can't say that I've tested this everywhere, but this is the case in Firefox at least. Matrix animations would be nifty. > be pretty useful for some types of computed structures, > for example animated IFS (iterated function systems). > Authors today have to construct huge workarounds to > get a similar effect, because currently matrix is not > animatable. > For example one can workaround it with a huge values > animation of xlink:href of use referencing different > static transformed pattern in the defs elements, > about 20 pattern per second animation. This can be > simply avoided, if matrix would be animatable. > In some versions of Opera this is available and > can be tested. > > If matrix animation is implemented, this could (almost) > solve the current problem with a to animation > for animateTransform to meet the SMIL requirement > to have a smooth and continuous animation from > the underlying value to the to-value. > One simply can calculate the underlying value > and the to-value as matrices and to interpolate > between. > For some specific simple cases authors may expect > another behaviour (for example if the underlying > value is rotate(360) and the to value is rotate(0)), > but these simple cases can be typically covered > easily with from-to or values animations, > the typical SMIL effect, the basic functionality > for to-animations not. > > Note, that skewX and skewY are mentioned here, but > not in section 3. Because there is no skewZ, this is > ok for section 3, for 4. however they can be skipped, > because the section title indicates, that it is > only an extension. Whatever is done, I think, at > least 3. and 4, should be consistent and the titles > of the sections should fit to the content ;o) > > > Best wishes > > Olaf > > > -- Cheers! Rick
Received on Tuesday, 24 March 2009 02:50:45 UTC