[Accepted] Revise SDL-0180 - Broaden Choice Uniqueness
jordynmackool opened this issue · 4 comments
Hello SDL community,
The review of "Revise SDL-0180 - Broaden Choice Uniqueness" begins now and continues through January 26, 2021.
This will be a review of proposed revisions to a previously accepted but not yet implemented proposal, SDL 0180.
The pull request outlining the revisions under review is available here:
Reviews are an important part of the SDL evolution process. All reviews should be sent to the associated Github issue at:
What goes into a review?
The goal of the review process is to improve the proposal under review through constructive criticism and, eventually, determine the direction of SDL. When writing your review, here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
- Is the problem being addressed significant enough to warrant a change to SDL?
- Does this proposal fit well with the feel and direction of SDL?
- If you have used competitors with a similar feature, how do you feel that this proposal compares to those?
- How much effort did you put into your review? A glance, a quick reading, or an in-depth study?
Please state explicitly whether you believe that the proposal should be accepted into SDL.
More information about the SDL evolution process is available at
https://github.com/smartdevicelink/sdl_evolution/blob/master/process.md
Thank you,
Jordyn Mackool
Program Manager - Livio
jordyn@livio.io
The additional documentation looks good to me. It's not part of the revision update but how are you planning to detect a system not supporting duplicate primary text? I assume by RPC spec version?
In the mobile libraries, if it is detected that we are working with an SDL system that does not support duplicate primary text (based on the RPC version), we should append "(1)", "(2)", etc. after duplicate primary texts in the following way:
Thanks for taking a look. I'll number that as (1) for future reference if there are additional points to be made:
1. Yes, I'm sorry that it wasn't explicitly stated, but yes, using the RPC spec version.
The Steering Committee voted on 2021-01-26 to accept these proposed revisions.
The proposal markdown file has been updated per the accepted revisions. Comments have been left on implementation issues to reference revisions: