Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

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

Bowie Poag wrote:
> 
> Ok.. Given the input on the last proposal, lets give it another run:
> 
>  o  Levels listed in descending order, highest esteem first. Level 1
>     Compliant Apps are held in the highest regard, where as Level 5
>     are held in the lowest.
> 
>     Reasoning: Future expansion. We cant very well have "Level 0
>     Compliancy". Future versions of the Style Guide will more
>     than likely need to revise/restructure the Compliancy definitions
>     at some point in the future. If we do it in descending order,
>     we'll have no problem. If they need more levels, no problem.
>     If we DONT do it in descending order, with Level 1 having the
>     most esteem, we WILL have a problem on our hands.
> 
>     ....All agreed?

Sorry, not yet.

Could you be a little more specific than most/least esteemed? 
And your Reasoning is just a statement of vague opinion...could
you provide some specific examples that support your concern?

Is this the mapping that you're proposing?

GL1 = C3 (Suggested)
GL2 = C2 (Recommended)
GL3 = C1 (Mandatory/minimum)

Orrrrr....

GL1 = C4 (Optional)
GL2 = C3 (Suggested)
GL3 = C2 (Recommended)
GL4 = C1 (Mandatory/minimum)

Orrrrr, are you suggesting we completely revise the character of
the existing Cx levels?

I don't think we would ever need to add a category after GL4,
because the old C1 will define the absolute minimum that an app
needs to be a GNOME app.  Any less compliancy, and it's off the
scale.  The GL scale is only expandable the other direction,
which leads to zero and negative numbers.

>     Shorthand : "GL1 Apps"
>:
>: "This app is GL1 Compliant."

Maybe...not 100% sure yet.

John