Topic on Talk:Best practices for extensions

Done.

Right now this document uses language similar to but different from RFC 2119:

• REQUIRED – Meeting these criteria likely means your extension will work, but it may not be sustainable or maintainable.
• SHOULD – Meeting these criteria likely means your extension works well and will continue to work well in the future
• GOLD – Meeting these criteria means your extension is the ideal standard we all aspire to be, and should be used as an example to other developers

It might be better to directly use that RFC's language, e.g.:

• MUST – Meeting these criteria likely means your extension will work, but it may not be sustainable or maintainable.
• SHOULD – Meeting these criteria likely means your extension works well and will continue to work well in the future.
• RECOMMENDED – Meeting these criteria means your extension is the ideal standard we all aspire to be, and should be used as an example to other developers.

Thoughts?

+1 from me for using the RFC 2119 labels.

Ping people who have edited the page or this board for their views: @Legoktm, @Mainframe98, @Trizek (WMF), @Samwilson, @Quiddity (WMF), @SamanthaNguyen, @Thiemo Kreuz (WMDE), @Tgr (WMF), @Umherirrender, @Nikerabbit.

+1 from me.

I support this change, makes sense to me.

Good idea. I been feeling like the 'GOLD' left a bit of room for "oh let's not bother", which RECOMMENDED doesn't so much. :)

Absolutely +1.

RFC 2119 does not differentiate between SHOULD and RECOMMENDED; the levels are MUST, SHOULD and MAY (but the last one doesn't really match what GOLD means).

Yeah, I'm being a bit cheeky in seeing a distinction between SHOULD and RECOMMENDED which formally isn't there.

Go for Must, Should and Recommended while they are (I think) quite universally understood.

Done in https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Best_practices_for_extensions&diff=2826422&oldid=2825537&diffmode=visual – hope this works for everyone.

thanks looks good!