Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 3

[Bowie Poag <bjp primenet com>]

> 
> I agree that experimental (i.e. not fully-implemented features) should not fall
> into an official style level.  I proposed the following levels in my previous
> post, "Identity within Compliancy Levels":
> 
> GC1: GNOME-Friendly (Gleef's term)
> GC2: Core GNOME
> GC3: Integrated GNOME
> GC4: Advanced GNOME
> GC5: Extended GNOME
> 
> Fairly intuitive.  I refer you to that post for a better description of what
> each would mean.  I believe that this is a more natural progression than my
> earlier proposal that placed the experimental styles in GC5.  With this latest
> version, GC5 holds the more gee-whiz features, like theming and animations,
> etc....stuff that is (potentially) fully-implemented, but far from necessary to
> an average GNOME app.  GC5 should have nothing to do with whether a feature is
> implemented or not.


Bad idea. Youre trying to encompass every possible GNOME application under
the definition of "GNOME Compliant". Thats not what were trying to do
here. Experimental apps are simply experimental apps. Theyre simply not
compliant, since they havent met the basic set of qualifications for even
the lowest level of compliancy.

Not everyone is under the umbrella when it comes to compliancy.

Bowie