RE: Proposal: <star> element

And I presume “regularPolygon” would be to confusing?
I get your point though.

Thomas

From: Paul LeBeau [mailto:paul.lebeau@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2014 11:12
To: Smailus, Thomas O
Cc: Rik Cabanier; Tab Atkins Jr.; Gavin Kistner; Stephen Chenney; David Dailey; Dr. Olaf Hoffmann; www-svg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Proposal: <star> element

I just wanted to point out that stars are only one half of this proposal.  This element can do regular polygons as well - including easy triangles and diamonds.

It is only called "<star>" because <polygon>" was taken. :/

Paul


On 29 April 2014 06:06, Smailus, Thomas O <Thomas.O.Smailus@boeing.com<mailto:Thomas.O.Smailus@boeing.com>> wrote:

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.

I thought so too, but searching for "SVG images" brings up a lot of artwork that uses stars (and triangles which are also stars)


I’m pretty certain that in the tens of thousands of technical engineering diagrams that Boeing has, almost none (I’ve never seen one, but I’ve only seen tiny sample of the whole ) have a star on them.

I can imagine some graphics arts might contain them, while technical diagrams would likely not contain them.  Just keep in mind that the SVG images in existence contains a very large sample that is not available to find with a search.


Thomas
--
Thomas Smailus, Ph.D.  P.E.
Boeing Information Technology
thomas.o.smailus@boeing.com<mailto:thomas.o.smailus@boeing.com>