<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>Did Nacin or Otto write someplace that shortcode’s were bad to use in a
theme?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV><FONT size=3 face=Calibri></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV style="font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A title=chip@chipbennett.net
href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net">Chip Bennett</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 25, 2013 11:20 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org
href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">[theme-reviewers]</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [theme-reviewers] Grandfather Themes?</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<P dir=ltr>A granted exception to the guidelines is not equivalent to
"grandfathering". For something written two years ago, that response remains
remarkably germane today.</P>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Jun 25, 2013 2:15 PM, "Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)"
<<A href="mailto:philip@frumph.net">philip@frumph.net</A>> wrote:<BR
type="attribution">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>There was; unfortunately those emails we used to have on my mail server
are all gone now for me to refresh your memory on the discussion, I will sum
it up for you though, Bruce in the past, specifically June 27th, 2011
Bruce made the same email to the thread that he just now did.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This was your response back then:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
title=http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2011-June/006081.html
href="http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2011-June/006081.html"
target=_blank>http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2011-June/006081.html</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>When we had a group discussion in private, both Cais and myself brought
up that themes need to have backwards compatibility for their users and it was
unjustified in requiring a plugin to be made specifically for minor things
that a theme can handle sufficiently. We all agreed that it would
be case by case at that point, hence grandfathering.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>my 2cents.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The shortcodes and everything else that is ‘plugin’ based in your opinion
makes the theme unique, not derivative; and there are quite a few people who
have been creating themes for a long time which utilizes functionality in
themes that do no harm.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The decision to ‘reject’ themes based on this and make it a requirement
is really not something that is wanted, I can speak for myself and you read
the messages from other’s who state the same thing.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I believe I read that the backing idea is to make all themes compatible
with all of the other themes on the repository. IF that is
the case, then create a theme that everyone can make a design off of and
require us to use that; because there’s no sense anymore for anyone to make
something custom/scratch.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To summarize:</DIV>
<DIV>There is nothing wrong with having a theme that has it’s own features as
long as the core component calls are up to date. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt tahoma">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #f5f5f5">
<DIV><B>From:</B> <A title=chip@chipbennett.net
href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net" target=_blank>Chip Bennett</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:43 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org
href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org"
target=_blank>[theme-reviewers]</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [theme-reviewers] Grandfather
Themes?</DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none">
<P dir=ltr>There has never been a "grandfather" provision. All Themes have
always been required to conform to all guidelines as current at the time the
Theme is submitted for review.</P>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>On Jun 25, 2013 12:16 PM, "Bruce Wampler" <<A
href="mailto:weavertheme@gmail.com"
target=_blank>weavertheme@gmail.com</A>> wrote:<BR type="attribution">
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex"
class=gmail_quote>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>I just submitted a revision for my theme, Weaver II. This theme has
been in the repository for several years, and met all the theme
recommendations when it was first submitted. It has since become one of the
more popular themes available from the repository and has, as far as I can
track, many thousands of users.<BR><BR></DIV>I am certain there are many
other themes that are in the same category - originally approved long ago,
but containing features or other aspects that would not meet the current
theme standards. In my case, the theme contains very minimal SEO support, as
well as a number of shortcodes to support the presentation of content in
various ways. At the time my theme was developed, it was not uncommon for
themes to have integrated shortcodes.<BR><BR></DIV>Now, I think I am being
asked to remove the shortcode/SEO support, and I think it was by
Chip.<BR><BR>"Pushing this version live. Please look to remove Plugin
territory features<BR>(SEO, post-content shortcodes, etc. as applicable) in
the next revision."<BR><BR><BR></DIV>This seems to me a radical change in
how existing themes have been treated, and is extremely disturbing. While I
understand and even agree with the new "plugin" territory guidelines, I am
quite taken aback at the consequences of such a new requirement on what I
had understood to be a grandfathered theme.<BR><BR></DIV>Here are the
issues:<BR><BR></DIV>1. It is important to keep up with new WP features
(e.g., 3.6 post types), fix bugs, and even add new features to keep the
theme up to date and modern.<BR><BR></DIV>2. It is essential to keep these
grandfather themes backward compatible. Imagine the total disaster it would
be for the user base (and it just as important to a small user base or a
user base in the thousands or more) if they update their site's theme only
to have the site totally break because all the plugin territory features of
the theme had been removed? <BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV>3. The alternative is to allow the existing theme to become static and
out of date. Not reasonable, either.<BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>I just don't understand how it is reasonable, fair, or even
good for the reputation of WordPress to force thousands and thousands of end
users to suffer a radical disturbance to their site, or go through some
conversion process to keep their site from breaking. (And yes, I know it is
that exact issue that removing all plugin territory stuff from a theme
prevents - but that was not a requirement or even a recommendation 2 years
ago.)<BR><BR></DIV>So, if it is going to be the new official policy to force
previously grandfathered themes to undergo possibly radical surgery to meet
current guidelines, then this needs to be done is a more formal and well
planned out way. Time frames for conversion. Possible exceptions to some
rules to ease transition (e.g., allowing auto load and inclusion of a theme
accessory plugin at least for a significant transition
period).<BR><BR></DIV>But personally, I just can't see how one can
reasonably avoid grandfathering themes. Certainly there are some standards
that don't really affect how a theme works that could be required to be
updated (e.g., security issues), but there are also many (and plugin
territory is certainly an obvious example) that would create major theme
breakage for the end user.<BR><BR></DIV>But whatever, being told to totally
change a theme's operation before being allowed to submit a new revision is
not the way to handle grandfathered themes.<BR><BR></DIV>Bruce
Wampler<BR></DIV>Weaver II
theme<BR></DIV><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>theme-reviewers
mailing list<BR><A href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org"
target=_blank>theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers"
target=_blank>http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>theme-reviewers mailing
list<BR><A href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org"
target=_blank>theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</A><BR><A
href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers"
target=_blank>http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</A><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV><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"
target=_blank>http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</A><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
_______________________________________________<BR>theme-reviewers mailing
list<BR>theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org<BR>http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers<BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>