[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: about transform [was RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - Proposed WebCGM 2.1 ...]
Dieter, While animation is the movement of something through time, I don't think our requirements view "time" as an absolute. There are lots of defintions of animation on the web (see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:animation&sa=X&oi=gl ossary_definition&ct=title). My favorite is "The way objects enter and/or exit a PowerPoint slide." Some of the animation that Molly described was exactly that. Movement of an object from point A to point B. Molly would look at it and say I'll probably generate 29 copies of that object along the path from A to B and turn the visibility off and on to create a "pleasing" movement. She didn't say "I have to move this object from point A to point B in 3.48 seconds". So in my opinion, transforming an object to move it or rotate it is animation even if it's not tied to a specific time line. Thx...Dave Technical Fellow - Graphics/Digital Data Interchange Boeing Commercial Airplane 206.544.3560, fax 206.662.3734 david.w.cruikshank@boeing.com -----Original Message----- From: Weidenbrueck, Dieter [mailto:dweidenbrueck@ptc.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 2:11 PM To: Lofton Henderson; Bezaire, Benoit; cgmo-webcgm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: about transform [was RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - Proposed WebCGM 2.1 ...] Lofton, >I think there was general agreement (heeding the experienced advice of >Itedo!) that declarative animation is beyond the scope of a "quick 2.1". Our point was that it doesn't make sense to start to work on something big like declarative animation given the small list of people who may contribute to this kind of work. Very quickly the discussions would become lengthy, just look at the SVG story. Also, there should be early discussions with W3C about their opinion regarding animation in CGM, given the fact that SVG already supports animation. So I think animation is not only beyond the scope of 2.1, we shouldn't start it unless we have resources and timely implementations. What we are discussing now has nothing to do with animation at all, and it shouldn't be called this way. We are simply applying geometrical transforms to static objects, happening immediately. There is no timeline or similar involved. You could also say that we are switching modes, e.g. switch open or closed. So if we expand the DOM to support changing geometry, we open a box that we had kept closed so far, which is access and manipulation of primitives and coordinates. I completely understand that users try everything to accomplish their goal, however, I am not inclined to introduce something that already failed inside SVG here. I will try to be on the call tomorrow, we can discuss then. Regards, Dieter
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]