Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bowie Poag <bjp@primenet.com>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 10:54 AM
Subject: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.


>
>Ok.. Given the input on the last proposal, lets give it another run:
>
>
> *  Five compliancy levels. (All agreed--DONE)
>
> 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?


Bowie, please.

I haven't heard a SINGLE argument yet saying why Level Five functionality is
in the same category as Levels One through Four.

I REALLY think 1-4 w/ experimental is appropriate...and we need a space for
things that are required even of experimental apps...

If I'm to be overruled, I *would* like a reason.  IF ANYBODY is to be
overruled, they deserve that much.

> o  Longhand  : "GNOME Level 1 Compliant Applications"
>:
>: "This application is GNOME Level 1 Compliant."
>
>
>    Shorthand : "GL1 Apps"
>:
>: "This app is GL1 Compliant."
>
>    ....All agreed?


GC# has no prior contexts.  L1-5 does.  C1 and C2 do.  G3 does.  GL?
OpenGL?  QuakeGL?  Mindshare...lets try to take something nobody is using.

At least say why NOT.