Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.



Bowie Poag wrote:

> > 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.

Hmmmm.  What you're describing sounds alot like the first mapping I described,
where the C3 level (meaning that the app is fully GNOME-compliant, above and
beyond the call of duty) is equivalent to your GL1.  Correct?  And C1, which
means that an app has implemented just barely enough to qualify as a GNOME app
(e.g. it's menus are in the right place, but no drag & drop, no session
support, etc.) would be equivalent to your GL3.  Correct?

I still think it's the other way around.  An app can never be less compliant
than C1/GL3 and still qualify as a GNOME app.  If that's not a good baseline,
then I don't know what is.  Conversely, there should _always_ be room for an
app to become _more_ compliant, and we should encourage developers that in
this regard, the sky's the limit.  If a developer wants to forge a new
standard beyond what's laid out in the style guide, to the extent that we need
to create another compliancy level for him, we should be able to.  If we're
already maxxed out at GL1, where else is there to go?

That's my argument, anyway.  What does everyone else think?

John




[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]