- From: Anthony Grasso <anthony.grasso@cisra.canon.com.au>
- Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 15:49:19 +1000
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Hi Dr. Hoffmann, Thank you for bringing this problem to our attention. As per your suggestion I've removed the conflicting paragraph from the animateTransform section. This closes ACTION-2777. Kind Regards, Anthony Grasso Dr. Olaf Hoffmann wrote: > Hello www-svg, > > the current draft for 1.1 second edition still notes for > paced animateTransform: > http://dev.w3.org/SVG/profiles/1.1F2/publish/animate.html#AnimateTransformElement > > " > If ‘calcMode’ has the value 'paced', then a total "distance" for each > component of the transformation is calculated (e.g., for a translate > operation, a total distance is calculated for both tx and ty) consisting of > the sum of the absolute values of the differences between each pair of > values, and the animation runs to produce a constant distance movement for > each individual component. > " > This is in conflict with the definition of calcMode paced: > "paced > Defines interpolation to produce an even pace of change across the animation. > This is only supported for values that define a linear numeric range, and for > which some notion of "distance" between points can be calculated (e.g. > position, width, height, etc.). > " > The paragraph in the animateTransform section does not define/explain > correctly some interpolation between items in a values list or a notion > of "distance" between points (the items in the values list), it defines more > than one distance and the result is of course in general not a paced > change across the animation. > > Therefore both is not implementable at the same time anyway. I would > like to propose to remove the cited paragraph in the draft in the section > about animateTransform to avoid further confusion about this issue. > (SVG tiny 1.2 explains it better, but for SVG 1.1 (2E) it should be > sufficient to remove the conflicting paragraph as a bug.) > > Olaf > > > > >
Received on Monday, 3 May 2010 05:49:52 UTC