Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Compliancy Level Definitions

[Scott Goehring <scott poverty bloomington in us>]

"Bowie" == Bowie Poag <bjp@primenet.com> writes:

Bowie> o All compliancy levels MUST meet certain, specific criteria
Bowie> in addition to a set of -optional- requirements.

To me, this seems like a non-point to make.  If it is determined that
a compliancy level should have some criteria optional and some
mandatory, then we'll write it that way.  If not, then not.  Mandating
that each level must have both sorts seems to evidence overly-rigid
thinking and an preoccupation with form over function.  

Keep in mind that your "proposal" is actually a meta-proposal, since
it seeks to affect what the style guide will contain, rather than the
style guide itself.  I think we should avoid meta-proposals because I
don't want this to turn into an endless debate over whether we're
having a debate, and if so, over what.

My recommendation is that you withdraw the proposal and stick to
making proposals with actual substance.