Re: Proposal: <star> element

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 11:58 PM, David Dailey <ddailey@zoominternet.net>wrote:

> +1
>
> Before we decide what a language should not express, we really ought to
> decide what it can express!
>

Yes. The SVG language already contains sufficient functionality to express
the star element use cases presented thus far.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann [mailto:Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de]
> Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 10:17 AM
> To: www-svg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposal: <star> element
>
> Philip Rogers wrote:
> >Adding <star> will unnecessarily break compatibility with existing SVG
> >viewers, many of which do not have plans to support SVG2 (Presto,
> >Batik, etc). Additional spec complexity reduces the chance that a new
> >SVG2 implementation will be written: the barrier to entry is already
> >above what a hobbyist can achieve. Lastly, the code behind even a
> >simple feature must be downloaded all users (with browsers this is now in
> the billions).
>
> With this argument, we should forget about any new feature and SVG2
> completely [Snip]
>

No, that's a misrepresentation. Philip's argument is that the cost of the
star element is unnecessary. He says nothing at all about the necessity of
other features.


> Olaf
>