- From: bulia byak <buliabyak@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 12:44:21 -0300
- To: Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc>
- Cc: www-svg@w3.org, Jerrold Maddox <jxm22@email.psu.edu>
On 8/24/05, Doug Schepers <doug@schepers.cc> wrote: > <star id='pentagram' cx='300' cy='100' r='40' r2='20' points='5' > orient='point'/> Inserting all kinds of fancy things into the standard does not sound like a good idea to me. What would you save with the above, compared to a simple <path> that draws the same shape? A few bytes? Is this worth the trouble you'll be giving all implementors? Moreover, those implementor that need stars, have already implemented them via <path>. For example Inkscape can not only do arbitrary stars, but it can also round them: http://inkscape.org/screenshots/gallery/inkscape-0.39-CVS-linux-stars.png and even randomize them: http://inkscape.org/screenshots/gallery/inkscape-0.40-CVS-linux-randomize.png Which means that, to maintain those features, Inkscape will still be unable to use a <star> even if it is introduced. In general, let's not bloat the standard. If something can be trivially done from the existing primitives, leave it to the implementors to do it. -- bulia byak Inkscape. Draw Freely. http://www.inkscape.org
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 15:44:40 UTC