- From: Dr. Olaf Hoffmann <Dr.O.Hoffmann@gmx.de>
- Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 11:27:00 +0200
- To: www-svg@w3.org
Smailus, Thomas O: ... >searching for "SVG images" brings up a lot of artwork > that uses stars (and triangles which are also stars) > .. to continue this chain of arguments, irregular star like shapes are pretty common as well, but not covered by Paul LeBeaus proposal. Maybe people belonging to nations with regular stars in their flags (and with a stronger relationship to those kinds of symbols) are more focussed on these regular shapes, if they talk about 'star', but others will be surprised, that the proposal does not cover some other kinds of popular stars. To restrict such an element of regular star like shapes pronounces mainly this local perception in some cultures or parts of the world. (And because some nations with a big popuplation with good technical requirements will prefer such shapes, they are more dominant in what we can find, if one searches for star like shapes ;o) For example in germany there is a popular magazine 'Stern' (english: star) with an irregular star as shape, therefore many people are familar with such types of shapes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_(magazine) Similar shapes appear in advertising as well, because they look more dynamic and individual than shapes with a discrete rotation symmetry. If we take this, german speaking people are a big popuplation with good technical requirements, and even more people get advertising therefore one could assume, that stars are typically irregular and only the regular shapes are a specific exception. On the other hand, the symmetry results in some specific fascination. But the intentionally broken symmetry has the potential to focus the attention of the audience even more - a regular polygon is (only) generic maths, an irregular star like shape can be already individual art ;o) Paul LeBeau: >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 covers even more, fine that it easy to get something like the star of David http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_of_David Such types consists of subpaths with the shape of a regular polygons, it is not a regular polygon itself. And with the attribute type="boundary" one gets another small subset of shapes as well, those regular stars with an arbitrary inner and outer radius, here only the ratio between the inner and outer radius is fixed by the values of the attributes points and density (what is nice for authors, wanting exactly this ratio, but there are much more stars with an arbitrary ratio of inner to outer radius (or even more than two radii) in heraldry, flags and logos, therefore one can surely assume, that these kinds of stars are of relevance as well. Furthermore, sometimes such star lik shapes have no cusps, but are more smooth, not covered for example by stroke-linejoin="round", several of them are not even comparable to the rect element with the attributes rx and ry. One has to admit, that it is pretty difficult to cover all popular star like shapes without a local perception with an element and a simple, intuitive attribute or subelement collection, but this star element proposal covers only a small subset of shapes often called stars. For an element with a name 'regularPolygon' the proposal should be more restrictive (no need for type="boundary" or the star of David like shapes consisting of more than one subpath) - but with this restriction the number of use cases would become even much smaller (and more boring) for authors. For an element with the name 'star' it has to cover far more shapes belonging to this group of shapes people typically call stars. Olaf
Received on Tuesday, 29 April 2014 09:27:34 UTC