Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

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

-----Original Message-----
From: Bowie Poag <bjp@primenet.com>
To: John R Sheets <dusk@smsi-roman.com>
Cc: Tom Vogt <tom@lemuria.org>; gnome-gui-list@gnome.org
<gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Wednesday, August 05, 1998 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.


>> Unless we paint it up that Level 1 is crappy and Level 3 (or 5) is the
greatest
>> thing since Plug & Play (just kidding).  It's all in the presentation.
If we are
>> clear in our presentation of the compliance levels, they will understand,
no
>> matter which way the scale goes.  Predisposition, in and of itself, is
not a
>> sufficient argument.
>>
>> John
>
>Youre still missing my point, here, John..


Bowie--I am too.

>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
>totally lose the whole point of using LEVELS when you do that.. Is Level 5
>now less desirable. And the more that comes down the pipe, the less and
>less desirable it will be to call your apps "Level 5 Compliant".


Well, actually, it should be announced that this is an experimental gnome
compliant level 1-4, which would serve as a warning that with sufficient
support and user feedback, the next edition of the style sheet would
actually contain this as a real requirement.

For example:  Suppose Xlab showed up in a year instead of it already being
available.  Screenplays would become an experimental Gnome Compliance Level
Three option, pending user/developer implementations.  If enough developers
decided to use it, it would become official GC3 in the next implementation.
If EVERYONE decided to implement it, it would be given a quick warning for
GC2, or POSSIBLY even limited GC1 status(doubt), and then placed on the
official list.

I'm not sure I like the idea of going straight from Experimental GC3 to
Final GC2.  Final GC4 wouldn't bug me, though.

>This wouldnt happen under our way, because we dont have a fixed ceiling.
>We dont have to change numbers. #1, as it is with everything, is always
>the best.. Not #5 one day, or #6 the next.


Or, #1 is always the minimum.  What, you're going to get less than the
minimum out of your users?  If #1 is the maximum, and something better comes
along, *THEN* you hafta renumber it.

Think about it:

Your Level 1:  Screenplays
Suddenly!  Super Screenplays come out.

Now, Level 1:  Super Screenplays
Level 2:  Plain old screenplays if no super screenplays.

See what I mean?


>Bowie
>
>(ps..pardon the bad typing today. Crappy winblows telnet client at work.)
>
>
>
>--
>         To unsubscribe: mail gnome-gui-list-request@gnome.org with
>                       "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>
>