Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> > 
> > "Esteem"  =  A developer would rather have all his apps be Level 1,
> >              versus all of the being crappy Level 5's. That is, there
> >              is more esteem in 1, than 5.. Not the other way around.
> > 	     1 must always be the highest, for future expansion. If
> > 	     its not done this way, what means "great" now, will
> > 	     end up being "medicore" later. This is a (tm) Bad Idea.
> > 	     1 for highest esteem, 5 for lowest is the way to go.
> 
> so according to which hard guidelines to we judge an apps level?
> 
> no, wait! we don't want to have this list around for the next 25 years to
> judge compliance levels. so how can the AUTHOR reliably check his level?

Let me file this one under D, for "Duh", Tom.

This is why the UISG has a Compliancy Checklist. But then, you wouldnt
have known that..Because you havent even visited the UISG webpage yet.


> 
> 
> > > also, I don't see "future expansion" as an argument. if the compliance level
> > > system is so messed up that we have to introduce whole new levels, the whole
> > > thing is probably so broken that it should be dropped.
> >  
> > Ahhh, but what if new GUI/desktop concepts come along, and people want
> > them mandated in the interface? Now what do you do?
> 
> if whole new CONCEPTS emerge? rewrite the style guide. there's a limit to
> the amount of superspace you can allocate.

No, a moron "rewrites" the style guide. A *real* style guide needs only
to be revised, and rarely at that. If the style guide was written
the way it was supposed to be written, its intrinsically flexible enough
to handle future concepts without any re-writes at all. But again, youre
insisting on developing a style guide the WRONG way, so, it doesn't
surprise me that you dont know how to handle such a potential problem.

I'm beginning to grow very tired of your inexperience regarding how to 
handle this project, Tom. Its beginning to show, in a BIG way.

> > Trust me on this one.. I had this exact same debate when we were working
> > on InSight's SG..And it took them a while for them to "get it". :) By the
> > time it clicked in their heads what I was talking about, a good 3 days had
> > gone by..and this was live, not on a mailing list. :)
> 
> I don't mind extension and all. I just say that we should keep the levels
> themselves general enough to allow for it. if level one says "there are the
> absolut really important things, don't even think about breaking them",
> that's a pretty good definition that allows for extension without changing
> it.
> see what I'm getting at? I want the levels fixed, but the contents
> changeable. the same way you can't change the name of your money too often
> (three times in a century for germany now with the euro is already taking
> flak just because) you shouldn't change the levels just because the contents
> changed.

Yeah, I get what youre saying. I also "get" the fact that if you want to
expand the style guide, under YOUR way of doing things, youre going to
have to expand into 0, -1, and -2 for compliancy levels. Have a free clue
on me, Tom -- Start with 1 at the high end, and 5 at the low end. That
way, you have an infinite number of possible levels to use.


> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
> 		-- Henry Spencer
> 
> 
> -- 
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-gui-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> 
>