Re: PROPOSAL: Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 2.

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

Regarding UISG Compliancy Level layout..

On Thu, 6 Aug 1998, Soren Harward wrote:

> 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.
> 

E x a c t l y.

With out way, we dont paint ourselves into a corner. If future needs
mandate more levels, or differently-configured levels, we have plenty of
room to expand. We're not going to have to keep re-defining which Level is
the one everyone should ultimately be shooting for..heh

Bowie



> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>                 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.
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-gui-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> 
>