Re: RSG, draft three

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> > One more time, Tom..
> > 
> > Maintained by Dan Kaminsky, Bowie J. Poag, Bill Swingle. 
> 
> see, that's the reason I wrote "and others" - bill was a recent addition,
> right? I don't even remember any announcements on the list.
> 
> anyway, changed.

Danke.

> 
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> a) this was generally agreed upon and yours is the first argument against I
> hear.
> b) don't consider the wording final. this is mostly a try to put the meaning
> into reasonable amounts of space.

Ah, ok.. No prob.

> > > 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.
> 
> provide them. :)

Workin on it. ;)

> > 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.
> 
> the very good example of  kai's power tools was mentioned. just because
> someone found a better way to do his specific things doesn't mean he's
> wrong, does it?

Absolutely not. This is what i'm saying -- The lowest-compliancy level
should also be flexible enough to encompass tuff LIKE Kai's Power Tools.
While being GNOME-Compliant, theyre simply different. To leave them off
the boat because theyre simply "original" is a mistake, imho. Kai's Power
Tools would be classified as a "Level 5 Compliant" app under the UISG.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, wouldnt the same app be
completely non-compliant under the RGSG?

> > > 2.4  SYSTEM UTILITIES
> > > ---------------------
> > 
> > Define "system utilities". This definition varies from platform to
> > platform.
> 
> gnome system utilities, of course. gtop, find-thingy, all those little
> beasts. maybe "system utilities" isn't a good word, but until someone
> provides me with a better one, I'll leave it alone.

A good move--But keep in mind the importance of definitions.


> (lets hope bowie is not a windoze app or we'll have to reinstall him)

I the Registry would break if you tried that -- better not! :)

Bowie