Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Compliancy Level Standardization, Revision 3

[Soren Harward <soren cinternet net>]

Well, I still like level 1 as best and level 5 as worst, but not enough to
give an opposing majority a hard time about it.

GC1 -> GC5 sounds better.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
                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 Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Bowie Poag wrote:

> o The UISG now proposes that the Compliancy Levels be listed from 1-5,
>   with HIGHEST esteem given to Level 5, and lowest given to Level 1.
>   In plain english, crappy apps which meet few requirements are listed
>   as Level 1 Compliant, fantastic apps with all the trimmings, bells and 
>   whistles are said to be "Level 5 Compliant"
>
> o Shorthand for the levels: "G5 Compliant" or "GC5 Compliant"?
>   LEts hear some opinions on either one - Its up for grabs. The
>   consensus appears to be evenly divided between both. I
>   personally prefer "GC" to "G".
>
>Agree or Disagree?