Re: COMMENTARY: The War, or Has Anyone Actually Read ESR?

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

I said..

> > Im at the point now, that given what I see in your style guide, I *dont*
> > want it merging with the UISG, personally. 
            ^^^^^^^ 

John said..

> This statement makes me nervous, and more than a little
> concerned....

My "merging", I mean basically slapping them together. That cant happen.
The inconsistancies that would erupt within the document would be
mind-boggling.


I said.. 

> > I think I speak for the other
> > co-maintainers on this issue as well.. Doing so will produce a final style
> > guide of lesser quality than what we could have delivered with the UISG
> > alone.


John said..
 
> Well, nobody suggested cut & paste.  I believe Tom meant that we
> should merge the _ideas_ contained by the RSG into the UISG.  I
> agree that the presentation format, and even the compliancy level
> standards don't really mesh.  But the _ideas_ are universal. 
> Like Tom has said, the RSG is merely his attempt to organize the
> _ideas_ presented here in the list.  He has added very little
> content of his own.  So, if most of the RSG represents ideas from
> the list, how can that drag down the quality of the UISG?  It
> seems to represent a goodly portion of the list's opinion.

The RSG presents the ideas in a very loosely bound, inconsistant form.
We're building the exact opposite into the UISG; Tightly bound, highly
consistant. If we were to extract ideas from the RSG for possible
inclusion into the UISG, they would have to be ideas with "no strings
attached"..And, to be honest, I think we've exhausted the RSG's ability to
provide those specific items. Tom is building off into a direction we have
no intention of going. 

> > I dont mean this as a slam against Tom -- Its just that its even
> > now, to me at least, abundantly clear that the UISG is going to be a far
> > more consistant document than tom's project. To merge the two projects
> > would be to introduce inconsistancy into the UISG, and I dont want that.
> 
> Okay.  Start by giving some specific examples on how adding ideas
> from the RSG into the UISG would create inconsistencies.  I've
> already conceded that the format & compliancy scheme don't
> match.  Do you have any other issues?

I've got more issues than Time, when it comes to RSG->UISG mergers. :)

Here's an example. To quote from Tom's "Compliance Verbs" post, Tom wants
the Compliance Levels set up in the following manner:


G1: Manditory (bare minimum)
G2: Reccomended 9needed for a proper GNOME app)
G3: Suggested (should be there)
G4: Optional (fringe feature)
G5: Under Development (cutting edge, not official style yet)

First of all, Tom's levels contract themselves. Under his level system, an
application can be "G5 Compliant".. but not officially style guide
compliant? What the heck is that? His list is also enumerated in the wrong
direction. Further development/revision of these compliancy levels will
eventually paint the style guide into a corner, down the line.

Second of all, in our eyes, his levels are being broken down completely
in the wrong manner. Saturday's Revision 0 release will propose in detail
what i'm foreshadowing here.. The UISG will (likely) handle it in the
following manner:

G1: Meets all requirements listed in G2, G3, G4, G5, and THEN some.

G2: Meets all requirements listed in G3, G4, G5, and THEN some..But not
    enough to meet G1's requirements.

G3: Meets all requirements listen in G4, G5, and THEN some.. But not
    enough to meet G2's requirements.

G4: Meets all requirements listed in G5, and then some.. But not enough
    to meet G3's requirements.

G5: Meets the basic set of requirements in order to be called "Gnome
    Compliant".
 
The UISG's Compliancy Level system is open-ended, evenly stepped and
anchored at both ends; Each level (with the exception of 5) is defined as
being able to meet the criteria listed in the level BELOW it, (whatever
they may happen to be) and THEN some.

For example: A Level 2 application *IS* a Level 2 application because it
             meets and EXCEEDS all the criteria of Level 3, but not quite
             all the criteria of Level 1.

Perhaps a little chart will help. Think of the Compliancy Levels like a
rope that an application must climb, to get to the top. Every Gnome
application starts out being "non-compliant", until it begins to exhibit
the features listed in the style guide. Once the application has met all
the criteria listed in Level 5, that application can now refer to itself
as G5 Compliant. So, the programmer keeps working..climbing the rope..
Soon, he has added more features into his program. He's gone up the rope a
bit, apporoaching G4. ..He builds, and builds, and builds, until he has
finally met all the criteria -- His app is now G4 compliant, so he keeps
going.. Up, and up, and up. 

1 <- Point of greatest compliancy (strictly adheres to UISG constn. guidelines)
|
|
| <- Posesses ALL G2 qualities, plus a little more, but not enough to make G1.  
2 <- Just barely manages to be deemed G2 compliant. 
|
| 
|
3
| <- Just one or two criteria away from being considered G3 compliant.
| <- Application posesses about half of the qualities to make G3 compliance.
| <- Application posesses about one third of the qualities to make G3 comp.
4 <- Application just meets G4 compliance.
| <- Just one or two criteria away from being considered G4 compliant.
|
|
5 <- Point of least compliancy (loosely adheres to UISG constn. guidelines)


Get the picture?

Bowie