Re: Proposal: <star> element

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 9:26 AM, Gavin Kistner <> wrote:
> "Sufficient" is not sufficient. I would call it "workaround exists". By the
> same argument, SVG should get rid of the <rect>, <circle>, <ellipse>,
> <polygon>, <polyline>, and <line> elements. After all, the <path> element
> covers all of these.
> The discussion should not be whether or not one _can_ draw the elements, but
> if doing so is sufficiently succinct and simple.

...and commonly used enough to justify the cost of adding it.

Private discussion with Philip has convinced me that adding a <star>
element (or a <polar> element, or any other particular instance of
something that's star-like and possibly does more) is probably not
worth it.  Stars happen, but they're not really common.  Plus, the
bearing command, which I think *does* justify itself, makes generating
stars fairly easy.  It might require some experimentation, but it's
easy to do guess-and-check and get something decent, as opposed to
today where it requires trig.

I think a real polygon element, that just did simple regular polygons
with an optional rotation, would probably pass the "sufficiently
simple *and* useful" test, though.  I know it's failed in the past,
but "too simple" isn't a great argument.  I *do* see regular polygons
a good bit of the time, and they're simple enough that there's not
much call for customization.  They're *even easier* to write with the
bearing command, but I think they can justify themselves.


Received on Monday, 14 April 2014 18:00:00 UTC