I agree, too. I think adding wp_dereigster_script() to Theme Check would be a great idea. My only question: is there *ever* a legitimate use of wp_deregister_script()? If so, we can add it as INFO; if not, we can just go ahead and add it as REQUIRED. But, I want to be sure we've considered any unintended consequences before doing so.<div>
<br></div><div>Chip</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:33 PM, esmi at quirm dot net <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:esmi@quirm.net" target="_blank">esmi@quirm.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">on 30/05/2012 22:01 Emil Uzelac said the following:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Also see:<br>
<a href="http://wpdevel.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/use-wp_enqueue_scripts-not-wp_print_styles-to-enqueue-scripts-and-styles-for-the-frontend/" target="_blank">http://wpdevel.wordpress.com/<u></u>2011/12/12/use-wp_enqueue_<u></u>scripts-not-wp_print_styles-<u></u>to-enqueue-scripts-and-styles-<u></u>for-the-frontend/</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am *so* not arguing against any of this but it does seem to me that the relevant themes could be weeded out at the mandatory checks/upload point. I assume the Theme Check plugin is based on the mandatory checks, yes?<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Mel<br>
-- <br>
<a href="http://quirm.net" target="_blank">http://quirm.net</a><br>
<a href="http://blackwidows.co.uk" target="_blank">http://blackwidows.co.uk</a><br>
______________________________<u></u>_________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">theme-reviewers@lists.<u></u>wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/<u></u>mailman/listinfo/theme-<u></u>reviewers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>