RE: [cgmo-webcgm] RE: about transform [was RE: [cgmo-webcgm] Groups - Proposed WebCGM 2.1 ...]

["Weidenbrueck, Dieter" <dweidenbrueck@ptc.com>]

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