Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> 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)

Neither, actually.

In my mind, C1, the most esteemed level, meets all the specific nit-picky
stuff described for being totally, totally in all ways Gnome-compliant. C2
applications adhere to fewer guidelines.. C3 adheres to even fewer, etc,
and finally, C5 is the description of an application which adheres to
NONE, or maybe just a small handful of guidelines.

Im afriad the MOST esteemed applications MUST be given the number "1" ,
because when future style guides are written for GNOME, four or five years
from now, they will likely call for new criteria which must be met; the
number of levels may also be changed. We cant build in the opposite
direction, you see? #1 must always be #1. There can never be anything
better than a Level 1 Compliant app. Should the need ever arise in the
future to add more levels, a 6th, 7th, or 8th level can be added. You cant
very well go 0, -1, and -2. :) This is why it makes no sense to call
"Level 5 Compliant" apps the best. What if you need to expand the list
someday?

This is also why the most esteemed apps need to be Level 1, and work down. 

Now, if everyone would just realize the total logic in what I've just
said, the debate could end *today* :) Hehehe