Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization

["Ben 'The Con Man' Kahn" <xkahn cybersites com>]

On Tue, 4 Aug 1998, Tom Vogt wrote:

> Bowie Poag <bjp@primenet.com> wrote:
> >  o 5 Levels of Compliancy per guide.
> 
> I think this is already agreed upon.
> 
> >  o Shorthand, "L1 Compliant Apps" , "L2 Compliant Apps", etc.
> > 
> >  o L1 held in highest esteem, L5 held in lowest.
> 
> L doesn't seem to find general consent, G a bit more. I've adopted G for
> now, unless someone comes up with something better.
> 
> "highest/lowest esteem" doesn't say much. G1 contains the core features, and
> it gets less important with higher numbers.

	Actually, someone made a good point about adding levels.  You
might want to use the old BASIC trick and number the levels by 10s
insteads of by 1s.  That way, the levels would be:

G10  -- The core features
G20  -- 
G30  -- ...

Etc.

	Levels could be added as new things get added.

						-Ben

------------------------------------ |\      _,,,--,,_  ,) ----------
Benjamin Kahn                        /,`.-'`'   -,  ;-;;'
(212) 924 - 2220                    |,4-  ) )-,_ ) /\
ben@cybersites.com --------------- '---''(_/--' (_/-' ---------------
          Meet Linux: Forrest Gump as an operating system.