On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Skarpness, Mark <mark.skarpn...@intel.com> wrote: > > As I said earlier in the thread - compliance isn't a statement of worth - it >simply > means that the app follows the rules of compliance so that it will run on any > compliant device.
I think there is a big disconnect here... I think the vast majority of people - devs and users, *WILL* view 'compliance' as a statement of worth... A compliant app will be viewed as safer and better than a non-compliant app by almost all users... That's been the core driver behind most of my posts here, and I suspect a lot of other people's. If you really don't believe that 'compliance' will be viewed as a statement of worth, why are you arguing so much about it's definition? As several people have said, I think we need to establish exactly what 'app compliance' is trying to accomplish. I think your goal is something like 'inform commercial app developers and users which apps will run on all meego compliant devices'. Personally, I think that's a good goal, but that it isn't sufficient. I think it also needs to cover "Inform users which apps will run reliably on all systems that have access to the meego repository." I definitely agree that we need to provide a way for commercial devs to be successful... but I think the beauty and power of a system like MeeGo will also come from the open source devs, and we *need* a way to indicate which of those applications are safe and reliable for end users... I also still haven't seen any discussion about the UX's here... Is the intent that a meego compliant app will run well on *all* UXs? Warren -- Warren Baird - Photographer and Digital Artist http://www.synergisticimages.ca _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list MeeGo-dev@meego.com http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
