Re: Proposal: <star> element

> And I presume “regularPolygon” would be to confusing?

Maybe not, but given these are all classes of star polygons, I went with
the shorter name.


On 29 April 2014 06:27, Smailus, Thomas O <Thomas.O.Smailus@boeing.com>wrote:

>  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>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>