Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 2.

[Soren Harward <soren cinternet net>]

It makes great sense to me, and instictively feels right.  First place is
the best place, right?  Plus, it does allow for a little expandability.
We could suddenly go to 3 or 7 or 10987123 levels and still say "this app
is level 1 compliant [which is what we're all shooting for, right?]" and
mean that it's the most compliant, and not have to say "this app used to
be level 5 compliant but it's now level 3 compliant because we changed the
nomenclature."  However, I don't think we should be changing the
nomenclature.  Five levels, 1 (best) -> 5 (worst) seems like the best
proposal.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                Soren Harward               | Windows 95/98 DOES come
 Internet Information Systems Administrator | with a tool to recover
               Cinternet, Inc.              | from Registry
 Voice: 891-1228        soren@cinternet.net | corruption.
      http://www.cinternet.net/~soren/      | It's called 'FDISK'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, John R Sheets wrote:

>Bowie Poag wrote:
>> 
>>  o Ordering of the levels occurs from 1 to 5, with 1 at
>>    highest esteem, and 5 at lowest. (e.g., Level 1 apps
>>    are "more compliant" than 5. Its done this way for the
>>    sake of inevitable revisions done by other maintainers
>>    in the future.
>> 
>>    Arguments on this are still welcome, as always.
>
>To what end?  This part of the proposal has been the same in all
>three versions you've posted.  I (and others) have argued against
>it, with no others arguing in favor of it.  Yet it remains the
>same.
>
>I'm still convinced it's the wrong way to go.
>
>John
>
>
>-- 
>         To unsubscribe: mail gnome-gui-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                       "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>