W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > October 2010

Re: <animateMotion> specification clarification

From: Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:42:08 +1300
To: Alex Danilo <alex@abbra.com>
Cc: Nikolas Zimmermann <zimmermann@physik.rwth-aachen.de>, Shane Stephens <shans@google.com>, www-svg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20101012084208.GD9138@wok.mcc.id.au>
Alex Danilo:
> Something for the WG to argue. I'd say child <svg>'s should be transformable since
> that is far more likely to be useful to content authors. You could use an <image> and
> reference the child SVG that way and it would transform, so the restriction on <svg>
> should never be needed since you can rotate it too.
> So if you can apply current scale, translation and current rotation to the root SVG
> via the DOM there doesn't seem to be a good argument to limit the transform for
> child <svg> does it?

Agreed.  I sometimes find myself adding an extra <g> as a parent of an
<svg> element (which I want due to setting up a viewport so I can use
percentages) just so I can transform it.  It seems unnecessary to me.

Cameron McCormack ≝ http://mcc.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 08:42:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:54:28 UTC