- From: Ken Stacey <ken@svgmaker.com>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2011 01:02:30 +1000
- To: "Dr. Olaf Hoffmann" <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- CC: www-svg@w3.org
Olaf: >> Since I have built a lot of SVG SMIL generating code which assumes the >> Opera/ASV behavior, I would vote for a change to the spec. For me, it >> seems more useful/intuitive to apply animateMotion before >> animateTransform. But I'm not sure that is because it is genuinely more >> intuitive or because I'm used to it being that way. > > You mean for the previous example MP * MR * RT * AS? I'm not sure what you are asking. I meant that I am used to ASV and Opera working like RT * MP * MR * AS. > > Something like RT * MP * MR * AS does not fit to SMIL/SVG at all, > this would be very odd - Odd as it may seem, this is how ASV and Opera have appeared to implement it. > or this means basically to define that animateMotion is not > supplemental to animateTransform, more an alternative way to provide > an animation of the transform attribute with only translation and > rotation - but then the order of begin times and the order within the > source code of animateMotion and animateTransform becomes important > as well - including the conplication to indicate them to be additive, > if itis required that the later one does not replace the earlier > one. I think all it means is that animateTransform is supplemental to animateMotion. I agree that giving equal status to animateMotion and animateTransform does introduce some complications. > Olaf > Ken
Received on Monday, 31 January 2011 15:03:20 UTC