Re: <animateMotion> specification clarification

Nikolas,

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Nikolas Zimmermann" <zimmermann@physik.rwth-aachen.de>
To: "Alex Danilo" <alex@abbra.com>
Cc: "Shane Stephens" <shans@google.com>; <www-svg@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: <animateMotion> specification clarification


>
> Am 12.10.2010 um 09:23 schrieb Alex Danilo:
>
>> Hi Niko & Shane,
>>
>> Now I see the difference, child relationships.
>>
>> Anyway see inline:
>>
>> --Original Message--:
>>> Hi Shane,
>>>
>>> I think you are misunderstanding something:
>>>
>>>>   <path d="M-25,-12.5 L25,-12.5 L 0,-87.5 z" fill="yellow"
>>>> stroke="red" stroke-width="7.06" id="MyTriangle" >
>>>>   </path>
>>>>    <animateMotion dur="6s" repeatCount="indefinite" rotate="auto" >
>>>>      <mpath xlink:href="#path1"/>
>>>>    </animateMotion>
>>>
>>> This example is not correct, how shall the user agent know to which
>>> element the animation should be applied?
>>> It works as expected if you'd assign xlink:href="#MyTriangle" to your
>>> <animateMotion> element.
>>
>> The animateMotion should be applied to the parent element which in
>> that case is the <svg>. Since that's a container element all the
>> content should have the animateMotion applied. So the example is OK.
>
> Hehe, now that was stupid, I should have had my coffee before  mailing :-)
> But I'm still questioning wheter it's valid as SVGSVGElement is not 
> SVGTransformable, but only SVGLocatable.
> So shall it be possible to apply transforms to SVG using SMIL  animations, 
> but not through <svg transform=".."

Even before coffee you are right. A <g> container would be appropriate in 
the example, not an <svg>.

Domenico


>
> Cheers,
> Niko
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 08:47:27 UTC