Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization

[Ric Klaren <ia_ric cs utwente nl>]

On Tue, Aug 04, 1998 at 12:05:15PM -0500, John R Sheets wrote:
> 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).

Good point.

> >  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

Maybe a practical look at it... making 1 the highest esteemed level is
easier if you ever wanted to add a less esteemed compliancy level. 

Furthermore in most specs I've seen so far is making 1 the highest esteemed
thing and higher numbers the lesser esteemed the more common.

Ric
-- 
-----+++++*****************************************************+++++++++-------
- Ric Klaren - ia_ric@cs.utwente.nl ------- klaren@cs.utwente.nl --------------
-----+++++*****************************************************+++++++++-------
'And this 'rebooting' business? Give it a good kicking, do you?' 'Oh, no,
 of course, we ... that is ... well, yes, in fact,' said Ponder. 'Adrian
   goes round the back and ... er ... prods it with his foot. But in a
    technical way,' he added. --- From: Hogfather by Terry Pratchett.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PGP signature