<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2013-06-26 12:47, Sayontan Sinha
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAHFjg73=rry=H6N1vHxGtHkW6kJ=6ybEz7xmHGASh_hd1ei8Kw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">I agree,
however, I disagree that that is what you are doing. You are
locking users into your themes when they have no migration
path away that allows them to retain their data because they
unknowingly typed it into your theme not into WordPress.</span></blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style="">So let me ask you this - what if I were to offer
this code as a plugin AND bundled with my theme? This way I am
giving a user a migration path, I am offering value-added
stuff in my theme for those who don't want to use something
else, and I am avoiding breaking sites by yanking the code.
Would you consider this acceptable? The WPTRT doesn't find
this acceptable either, and that is one of the points Frumph
is trying to make. </div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
I wouldn't. No. It just adds a layer of confusion. Put design in
themes and content generation in plugins.<br>
<br>
You can give your theme special hooks for that plugin generated
content, even deregister it's output and do them up special in your
theme, but when the user uninstalls the theme all of the content
they generated while it was installed should still be there
available for them to use with any theme out of the box.<br>
</body>
</html>