Re: levels of compliance

[sungod <as387 yfn ysu edu>]

Federico Mena Quintero wrote:

> There are more or less two kinds of stipulations in the UI Guidelines,
> the rules and the suggestions.  Low-numbered compliancy levels were
> intended for rules, and high-numbered ones were intended for
> suggestions, kind of.  I agree that the distinction is murky, and
> maybe we could do away with them and just base things on the wording:
> 
> "If your application has a menu, it MUST be like this and this and that"
> 
> "If you use a dialog box, you MUST provide a way to close it"
> 
> "If you write an application, it SHOULD have complete online
> documentation, and if it does, it MUST use the GNOME documentation
> framework"
> 
> This is pretty much the same wording that is used by RFCs, and we may
> as well use it.  I certainly hope that the UI Guidelines will not be
> as dry reading as most RFCs, though :-)

i agree that this separation is probably all that's necessary to
differentiate, but as i said earlier to john sheets, let's just go ahead
and flesh out the document using the organization we have now and we can
pretty it up later if necessary (say, if some of the levels are unused).
i think it's more important to produce substance first anyway. :)

of course, if you go ahead and make those changes on your own while
we're hammering away at real content i don't see a problem with it. i'd
like to hear from anybody who still sees the value of five-level
stratification.
-- 
 ______(sungod)_____________________________________
| To ensure privacy and data integrity this message |
| has been encrypted by using dual rounds of ROT-13 |
 --------------------------(as387@yfn.ysu.edu)------