There really isn't a need to defend Xara from what are ultimately either a) nit-pick criticisms--some of which are poorly thought out, or b) feature requests. There's obviously nothing particularly wrong with the product, and it's clearly better than the competition in virtually every respect. It's not utterly perfect obviously, but each new version brings prioritised improvements. There are lots of things that Xara does now that could be done better or more completely, but that time didn't allow. I rarely complain because I have confidence they will eventually be addressed.

Regarding feature requests: obvious things not in there now will be eventually (within the scope of what the product is supposed to be--namely a 2D web and print graphics editor), such as skeletal stroking, mesh fills, volume of revolution, pixel editing, symbols etc. It seems that the main methodology is to primarily introduce new features that allow graphics to be created in ways that it's not practical to otherwise via another means (e.g. Extrude). Secondary is to improve established tools (e.g. selector tool, text tool). This pattern is confirmed and seen in every main release, but not everyone seems to notice in context.