Olaf, At 18/11/2009 09:54 PM, Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: >Hello, > >I think, the main problem with a 'real' z-axis is, that >for 3D-transformed objects there can be a different >z for any fragment of the object. That's true for 3D. But we're only talking about 2.5D, so considerable compromises must be made. IMHO, the first major compromise is to treat a graphical element as existing at one and only one point in the z dimension, even when transformed. >Therefore if there is more than one object, the >objects can intersect in a complex way. Treating objects as single z points (flat) prevents them intersecting in complex ways. > From a simple 2D-viewer one cannot expect >a proper computation of such intersections without >the help of the authors. From a 3D-viewer one can >expect this. > >If SVG2.0-viewers are not expected to be such >advanced 3D-viewers, objects can have only one >z-value to rearrange the rendering order without >solving the problem of intersections. >If this z-information is explicitly given or at least >implicitly known to the viewer for each object, >such a 3D-effects model can be kept simple >(there can be of course different approaches more >or less useful/convenient for authors). > >The first step to clarify the intended 3D approach for SVG 2.0 >therefore would be to say, whether a shape/object/path >can have more than one z-value or not. >After this decision or clarification one can go into details >how to get any effect at all. I agree. >Olaf Steve.Received on Thursday, 19 November 2009 08:43:38 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:24 UTC