Perhaps we need to redefine some elements. <br><br>1. Deal breaker<br>2. Required <br>3. Recommended<br><br>;)<br><br>James<br><br>On Friday, December 16, 2011, Chip Bennett <<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net">chip@chipbennett.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> Oh, I agree completely. Just because it's *required* doesn't mean that the reviewer can't approve it upon the stipulation that the issue is resolved in the next revision.<br>> Provided that the reviewers don't start taking heat for making subjective decisions, I think it would expedite the process to emphasize that such things are at the discretion of the reviewer. If something like the textdomain issue is the only observation in a review, I'm certainly not going to criticize the reviewer exercising such discretion.<br>
> Chip<br>><br>> On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Edward Caissie <<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>>><br>>> Although not technically correct to use a variable for the textdomain as described by Mark; and as Justin noted this is a 3.3 requirement ... we may also want to revisit this as a non-show-stopper issue.<br>
>><br>>> If this is the only issue with the theme then I would expect the theme to, for all intent and purpose, work correctly except for letter-perfect i18n implementation.<br>>> It seems if we truly want to start expediting the process to get themes reviewed we need to revisit some of the guidelines and how they are being interpreted ... for instance I would, given the condition there are no significant issues otherwise, resolve this theme as approved and note the correction should be made in the next (hopefully soon) release.<br>
>><br>>> In this particular case, it would be a logical conclusion to use a variable as the textdomain, I had come to the same idea myself prior to reading Mark Jaquith's post on the subject.<br>>><br>
>><br>>> Cais.<br>>><br>>><br>>> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Justin Tadlock <<a href="mailto:justin@justintadlock.com">justin@justintadlock.com</a>> wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> Technically, themes will be translated when using a constant or variable. Where it's problematic is with automated translation tools as mentioned by Mark's post.<br>
>>><br>>>> For the 3.3 proposed guidelines, we're requiring it (is it themes submitted 30 days after 3.3 is released?):<br>>>> <a href="http://make.wordpress.org/themes/2011/11/10/wordpress-3-3-proposed-guidelines-revisions/">http://make.wordpress.org/themes/2011/11/10/wordpress-3-3-proposed-guidelines-revisions/</a><br>
>>><br>>>> On 12/16/2011 10:58 AM, Paul de Wouters wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> Referring to this post by Mark Jaquith:<br>>>> <a href="http://markjaquith.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/translating-wordpress-plugins-and-themes-dont-get-clever/">http://markjaquith.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/translating-wordpress-plugins-and-themes-dont-get-clever/</a><br>
>>> is this cause for rejection?<br>>>> thanks<br>>>><br>>>> _______________________________________________<br>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>>>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>>>><br>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>>>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>>>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>>><br>>><br>>><br>>> _______________________________________________<br>>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>>><br>><br>>