[theme-reviewers] Theme Review Codex Page

Chip Bennett chip at chipbennett.net
Sat Aug 21 01:54:40 UTC 2010

"Requiring" Child Theme is not really a logical construct.

Of course, I'd love to *allow* Child Themes, but that's a different
discussion entirely. :)


On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <philip at frumph.net
> wrote:

>  Not if you use another core method of implementation, a Child Theme.
> So we're going to require child themes now, cause its a convience?
> ----- 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 6:46 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Theme Review Codex Page
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 8:42 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.
> The default search form can also be added via sidebar Widget. It requires
> no editing of Theme "core" files. So, searchform.php is truly superfluous.
> Conversely, changing the background color does require editing a Theme
> "core" file, and is therefore not forward-compatible.
> Chip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100820/2d32c472/attachment.htm>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list