Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 1.

[Ric Klaren <ia_ric cs utwente nl>]

On Wed, Aug 05, 1998 at 10:49:02AM -0700, Bowie Poag wrote:
>  *  Five compliancy levels. (All agreed--DONE)

Can live with that yup...

>  o  Levels listed in descending order, highest esteem first. Level 1
>     Compliant Apps are held in the highest regard, where as Level 5
>     are held in the lowest.

If I'm correctly reading this. You mean:

A very basic gnome application should meet *all* GL1 requirements. (so to say
v1.0)

A somewhat flashier gnome app (v1.1) meets also some of the GL2
requirements...

And so on to eg v1.114 it contains even the GL5 experimental gnome virtual
reality user interface requirements?

This is the normal way to do these things... for some it didn't seem clear.
it seems.

>     Reasoning: Future expansion. We cant very well have "Level 0
>     Compliancy". Future versions of the Style Guide will more 
>     than likely need to revise/restructure the Compliancy definitions
>     at some point in the future. If we do it in descending order,
>     we'll have no problem. If they need more levels, no problem.
>     If we DONT do it in descending order, with Level 1 having the
>     most esteem, we WILL have a problem on our hands.

One big ack!

>  o  Longhand  : "GNOME Level 1 Compliant Applications"
>: 
>: "This application is GNOME Level 1 Compliant."

It's gotta have one name.. this one will do as any other.

>     Shorthand : "GL1 Apps" 

Same reasoning. It's gotta have a name any name will do.. 

<SMALL RANT MODE> 

The following is a something induced by the general tendency of some ppl to
go into nitpicking details (call it flaming for as far as I'm concerned),
when some simple issues really aren't this hard to agree on. THIS IS NOT
DIRECTED AT ANYONE IN PARTICULAR.

if it's gc gl glc tlfc. who gives a d*mn anyway. Or someone means 'his'
name is better for some reason... personal taste can't be argued about. But
we have a goal here on this list.. this means we need to be 

CONSTRUCTIVE!

(in large friendly shining letters)

We should work together not against eachother.

So if everybody just takes a small step back and look at what he/she's doing
and can we then get on with it? (it helps if you just ignore the flames...)

I can go kick in some more big open doors but I think anyone here on this
list can do that for him/herself....

</SMALL RANT MODE>

Ric
-- 
-----+++++*****************************************************+++++++++-------
- Ric Klaren - ia_ric@cs.utwente.nl ------- klaren@cs.utwente.nl --------------
-----+++++*****************************************************+++++++++-------
'And this 'rebooting' business? Give it a good kicking, do you?' 'Oh, no,
 of course, we ... that is ... well, yes, in fact,' said Ponder. 'Adrian
   goes round the back and ... er ... prods it with his foot. But in a
    technical way,' he added. --- From: Hogfather by Terry Pratchett.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PGP signature