Re: RSG, draft three

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

>> The levels of compliance are:
>>
>> C1 - Mandatory (bare minimum)
>>      Contains only the essential styles, so current programs can be
brought
>>      up to at least some level of compliance fast.
>>      C1 features are considered to be of primary importance and
non-compliance
>>      will be considered a bug for Gnome applications.
>
>Very, very bad idea. This is where experience comes in, Tom -- Not
>personal opinion. Youre punishing the programmers by telling them what
>theyve done so far is "buggy".. This is anything BUT incentive to improve.


C1 things include components the USER will consider a bug if they're not
there.

For example, if I hit control C, and whatever text is selected isn't copied
into the clipboard, I consider that a *BUG*.  I don't care what the
programmer says, all I care about is THATS A BUG AND I WANT IT GONE.  By
extension, I think that any File menu that doesn't include an Exit option
will be considered wrong by the user.  The user will see this as a bug,
complain, bitch, and then return to his comfortable monopoly.

I'm *wayyyyyy* with Tom on this one.

>>
>> C2 - Recommended (needed for a proper Gnome app)
>>      Features and behavior needed to make an app a full-blooded
>>      Gnome app.
>>      Only applications meeting all of the C1 and C2 entries in this guide
>>      should be considered "true" Gnome programs.
>
>Define "full blooded" and "true".. These are ambiguous terms that will
>aggrevate coders, because they are flimsy and nondescript. Compliancy is
>NOT a beauty contest for apps.
>
>You also cannot mandate behavior across applications. Bad choice of word,
>I guess.


Sure you can mandate behavior across applications.  If we want to say, for
example, "All GNOME applications should support the standard GNOME font
interface", we can do that.

I don't really see a problem with this.

>>
>> C3 - Suggested (should be there)
>>      More advanced, harder-to-implement features, beyond the
>>      call of duty, yet still within the core group of styles.
>>      Should, but don't have to be implemented in finished programs, in no
>>      way mandatory for development versions.
>
>Like what? What separates C2 from C4? You cant define one by relying upon
>the definitions of others. There needs to be concrete, specific detail
>here.


C3 stuff, in my mind:  "This application should be scriptable using GTK+
CORBA bindings".

>>
>> C4 - Optional (fringe feature)
>>      "Nice to have" features that are considered useful, but may not
>>      be appropriate for all programs and are not necessary even where
>>      appropriate.
>>
>> C5 - Under Development (cutting edge, not official style yet)
>>      Experimental features that are not fully implemented or
>>      supported yet.
>>      (Will fall into other categories when fully realized)
>>
>> Exceptions will of course be allowed if the application or other
circumstances
>> require.
>
>No exceptions. Your compliance levels should be flexible enough to
>encompass everything from Barney The Dinosaur's Fun Math 1-2-3 to software
>that controls nuclear reactors. It is the fault of the guide, not the
>fault of the coder.


So do we refuse to certify Kai Power Tools if it ever gets ported?
Actually, we should generate a set of exception clauses, not "we can make
exceptions if we feel like it".

>> 2.4  SYSTEM UTILITIES
>> ---------------------
>
>Define "system utilities". This definition varies from platform to
>platform.


Is ping a system utility or a net utility?

>>
>> 3.1  GENERAL LAYOUT
>> -------------------
>> C2 - Dialog and other buttons in windows other than the main window
should
>> tend to be found at the bottom. for example, a dialog with only a single
>> button to close the window should have that button at the very bottom.
>
>Left justified? Right justified? Centered? Where is it?


Yes, we must be anal about this stuff.

>>
>> C5 - [Pie Menus]
>
>Untested thoeries do not belong within the main structure of any style
>guide. Hold gun, aim gun at foot, pull trigger.


Not fair, Pie menus have been tested HEAVILY.  More heavily than removing
the File menu and replacing it with some kinda Other.