Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization

[John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>]

Ummmm, not so fast.  

Bowie Poag wrote:
> 
> So, heres our proposal:
> 
>  o 5 Levels of Compliancy per guide.
I think this is a pretty solid standard by now.  So, yes.  Except
that I think we should be very careful how we handle the
"Suggested" and "Experimental" categories.  My official proposal
here is to create a conceptual separation between style levels
and app levels.  The style levels should (IMHO) range from 1-5. 
The app levels should range from 1-3.  Apps with "Suggested" or
"Experimental" styles should make note of this in their About
box, next to the app level, e.g. "Level 2 Compliant GNOME
Application with extended/experimental features".

>  o Longhand example:  "Level 1 Compliant GNOME Applications"

I think that's fine, for the longhand anyway.
 
>  o Shorthand, "L1 Compliant Apps" , "L2 Compliant Apps", etc.

I disagree with the "L" shorthand, however, because the word
"Level" is too generic on its own (e.g. could also mean L1, L2
cache).  The Acronym should stand for something much clearer. 
That was the reasoning behind "C" (compliance).  So far I like GC
(GNOME Compliance--better) and CL (Compliance Level--good but not
as good).
 
>  o L1 held in highest esteem, L5 held in lowest.

I think that's backwards.  I would go for (1 == least compliance)
and (3 == most compliance).  The number should be a general
indication of the degree to which the style/app conforms to
GNOME.

1 = Barely conforms
2 = Solidly conforms
3 = Conforms beyond the call of duty
 
> All agreed?

Like I said, not yet.

John