Huge Batch Reply: Bowie

["Dan \"Effugas\" Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

Bowie:

>> The big points of contention I'm having is that Program shouldn't suck up
>> the contents of File, that Program should really just be the
>> Gnomeprint(which appears to be the consensus), that both Program *and*
File
>> deserve to have Exit commands, and that renaming File is a really bad
idea.
>
>Agreed. However, it breaks consistancy to have "Exit" in File, and another
>"Exit" in Program. Instead, "Exit" belongs in Program, and * "Close" *
>belongs under file. "Exit" was also another one of those menu items that
>people couldnt really find a good home for. I mean, think about it..
>
>......exiting..a file? :)
>
>Consistancy is king. Remember that.

How about the Program menu getting Force Quit(would trigger Exit, and if no
death occured soon, SIGKILL would be delivered) and the File menu getting
Exit?

>I addressed this exact problem in an earlier email to the list,
>suggesting that C1-5 be the range of style classifications, and
>C1-3 be the related _application_ compliancy levels.

Too similar abbreviations, and I LIKE GC4.  It’s the experimental category
that changes the rules...

> o 5 Levels of Compliancy per guide.
>
> o Longhand example: "Level 1 Compliant GNOME Applications"
>
> o Shorthand, "L1 Compliant Apps" , "L2 Compliant Apps", etc.
>
> o L1 held in highest esteem, L5 held in lowest.

Levels 1 thru 4 plus an Experimental category that may or may not have an
associated level.  A new feature, say screenplays, would go from
Experimental, to Experimental Level 3, to plain old Level 3.

I like GC1-5 because 1) Branding and 2) I don’t know of much that uses GC1
through 4, but I know lots of L1-4.