Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

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

Bowie Poag wrote:

> Youre still missing my point, here, John..
>
> What happens when something new comes down the pipe, and GNOME users want
> it on their desktops, and on their interfaces? What do you do? Make
> another level? Level 6? And then say its better than Level 5? ..You

Well, that's where we differ.  You seem to think of compliancy levels as a measure of
"goodness": the higher the level the better.  I see it more as a completeness thing.  A
CG3 app is more _complete_ GNOME-wise than a CG2 app.  When an app graduates from one
level to the next, you could say that it has better compliance, but only as a vague
measurement of the accomplishment in general.  The important thing about achieving a
higher level is that the app is closer to being the ultimate GNOME app.  If you add a
Level 6, that doesn't affect how complete Level 5 is.  It just means Level 6 is a step
more.  GC3 apps should still be perfectly happy to exist at GC3 because GC3 will always
intrinsically mean the same thing.

On to your system.  If we top out at GL1, once you reach perfection, you've reached
it.  Period.  If we someday decide to add a new layer that outlines how you can make
your app EVEN more GNOME-like (say some unforeseen development has uncovered an
entirely new area to expand GNOME apps into that goes far beyond the existing bounds of
the style guide, yet is critical to the further expansion of GNOME)....if this happens,
where do you insert the new level?

In your system, it would have to become the new GL1.  Hmmmm, so what happens to the
"old" GL1?  You either have to merge the two, or move the entire Level system one slot
to the right, like Pez.  The old GL1 becomes GL2, which is in turn now GL3...etc.

In my system, you tack on another level (GC6), and leave the existing levels in their
cozy, familiar places.  You don't have to search & replace the style guide...you don't
have to post notices from here to Oz warning people that the compliancy levels have
shifted, so they'll have to change the text in their About box and redistribute all
their apps.

Maybe I'm exaggerating, and maybe this'll never happen.  And maybe Tom's right that a
good compliancy system shouldn't need to worry about all this.  But maybe not.  Best to
keep the system as flexible as possible for future generations, even if it's at the
expense of some minor aesthetics.

John