Re: Proposal for First Draft of GNOME Style Guide 1.1

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

I found myself in pretty sharp disagreement with Bowie's claim that the
Conformance rating guide was premature--it was an excellent contribution to
the group, and should be seen as such.

But then, I somewhat realized what he was getting at.  Lets say you're
involved in a project coding some application, and before you've even
established a namespace, people are contributing code.  On the one hand,
it's great--people are contributing really good stuff.  But on the other
hand, none of it works together, because everyone is using slightly
different namespaces, radically different toolkits, possibly even different
languages.  Even if you hack it together, it's going to compile HUGE, and be
utter bloat.

Bowie--and myself--don't want this happening to the style guide.  A
framework needs to be developed, then design specs need to be grafted into
the framework--this can't happen the other way around.

The question is, of course, do in-depth proposals have a place on this
group?  Do they mess with the framework too much?  Yes and no.  Huge
proposals have a way of forcing us to evaluate or re-evaluate sections of
the framework--that can slow us down and bug out our design, but it can also
revitalize it.

I'm not sure of my opinion now.  I see both sides, but I fear for Bowie :-)
I'm afraid y'all aren't going to understand his point, and are going to
think he's some kind of Interface Nazi(he ain't).