> "In the course of reviewing or documenting interfaces, the situation
> often occurs that an attribute will be present which may be inferred to
> be an interface, but actually is not. A couple of common examples of
> this are output from CLIs intended only for human consumption and the
> exact layout of a GUI."
>
> The project team is happy to adjust the classification level to what is
> appropriate and customary. Please advise.
IMO, it depends. Do you wish to declare the output to be
a programming interface? Or is the output meant as "human
readable." If a programming interface, how about Uncommitted?
If to be processed by humans, N-a-I. I read your initial posting
as N-a-I.
Gary..
>
> Cindi
>
> Joseph Kowalski wrote:
> > Gary Winiger wrote:
> >>> 4.4. Interfaces:
> >>> fmadm command-line options are Evolving, human-readable output is
> >>> Unstable.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hummm, how about Committed and Not-an-Interface respectively?
> >>
> > Not clear... Maybe they intended this to be Unstable/Uncommitted. Guys?
> >
> > - jek3
> >
>
