Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 3

[John R Sheets <dusk smsi-roman com>]

Bowie Poag wrote:
> 
> >
> > 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". 

Why is that a problem?  A GNOME app should always be able to find
some place on the scale for itself.  Should we start excluding
good-intentioned GNOME apps because they don't fit into our
initial vision of what a GNOME app should be?  And anyway, I
don't see how this response even applies to my statement.  I
never said anything about being all-encompassing, or covering
everything.  I merely suggested a way to make the compliancy
scale a more intuitive, natural flowing progression.  From most
important features to least important.  That's it.  What does
that have to do with all-encompassment?

> Thats not what were trying to do here.

Yeah.  Me neither (not that it'd be a bad thing).

> 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.

Well, if they haven't "met the basic set of qualifications", then
they aren't GNOME apps.  Should an existing app be banned from
GNOME just because it implemented something that wasn't 100%
feature-complete?  I'm not talking about experimental apps.  I'm
talking about apps that contain experimental features.  There's a
_big_ difference.

Let's say gEdit -- an existing application -- achieves GC3
compliance.  That's a big step.  Hooray for gEdit.  But then it
decides to implement menu themes, which is mostly implemented in
gnome-libs, but not entirely.  Let's say the menu themes code is
very stable, but not completely integrated into GNOME.  Perhaps
it doesn't respond to session management yet.  It works
beautifully, but doesn't automatically save its own settings.

Given this case, and your arguments, just because menu themes are
an experimental style, gEdit loses its status as a
GNOME-compliant app.  That's nonsense.  No one will even think
about trying new features if they get cold-cocked for it.

I don't know if that's what you were talking about.  That's what
I was talking about.

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

What do you mean?  Not every app is fully (GC5) compliant? 
That's self-evident.  Most apps won't need that much compliance. 
Most apps will stop at GC3.  And that should be perfectly fine,
IMHO.

Or do you mean that not everyone agrees about the way compliancy
should be handled.  I'm really not sure where you're going with
this statement.

John