[theme-reviewers] Theme Review Codex Page

Edward Caissie edward.caissie at gmail.com
Sat Aug 21 01:46:07 UTC 2010

Umm ... searchform.php is not a very good example. It's full functionality
for the most part is actually built into core.



On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:42 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <philip at frumph.net
> wrote:

>  Not really a devil's advocate type of question really.  There's no evil
> side to any of the must or optional.
> Devil's advocate to your devil's advocate then, the optional
> searchform.php, what would be the harm in requiring it?
> .. because it doesn't need it.
> The end user can edit the style.css via the appearance -> editor, just like
> the developer can use get_search_form(); and get the default one that imo is
> better.
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> *To:* Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <philip at frumph.net>
> *Cc:* Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> ;
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> *Sent:* Friday, August 20, 2010 6:38 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Theme Review Codex Page
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
> philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>>  Well put it this way ... custom-background is a convience.. that's all,
>> just like custom-header.
>> While post-thumbnails are a 'feature', if considered as such then I would
>> say yeah it should be required, but if I consider it an 'addon' then I would
>> say optional.
> Just to play Devil's Advocate, let me ask it this way: what would be the
> potential *downsides* if Custom Background support were made mandatory?
> (Just like I started from the opposite viewpoint, I'm not against returning
> to it. We could always use the Tagging system to note which features are
> supported by a given Theme.)
> Chip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100820/d7a6dff1/attachment.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list