Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

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

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


Let nobody say that Bowie and I are lackeys for eachother :-)

Bowie, any change in the future *will* require a total re-evaluation of the
conformance guides.

Lets say we go GC1 through GC4.  Can we really get any more harsher than "If
an application does not have this feature, it is buggy?"  I mean, ever?
Yes, I suggest a specific set of requirements for experimental apps, but
those are a subset of GC1.  If an experiemental app can't cheat a close, for
example, neither can a standard one.  But an experimental app can often skip
many GC1 apps and still be "experimental"

However, in the other direction, we can be less and less stringent about
requiring features, though human means for evaulation break down around
5(that's why scales are given from 1 to 5).  Like I said though, GC5 doesn't
make sense...GC3 compliance implies GC2 and GC1 compliance, but GC5
compliance DOES NOT IMPLY 1-4.

Experimentals provide time for authors to prevent their apps from losing
certification from one style guide to the next--experimental GC1, for
instance.

Anyway, as I was saying, if we suddenly realize we need a new category,
everything will have to be re-evaluated.  How can we prejudge the category
of something before knowing if an alternate category exists?