[theme-reviewers] Theme Review Codex Page

[Chip Bennett]

These are all fantastic arguments.

Where were they a month or two ago? ;)

Although, I think P2 is definitely an edge case, and as such shouldn't be
the exception that defines the rule. Can we create rules that allow for such
legitimate edge cases?

Chip

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <philip at frumph.net
> wrote:

>  True that, but by the same token, there are 'different' methods of
> implementation.
>
> custom-background has several different methods that could be an
> alternative including the themes own option pages which have a varity of
> different sublooks to it which would really faulter.
>
> My own CommPress theme has a specific background look to it, that would
> just make it look silly if someone didnt know what they were donig and put
> something else there.
>
> Do you want the end-user to have the ability to make their sites crap
> looking visually with ease?
>
> of course if you're in it for the money for supporting clients, then sure
> .. yeah absolutely. ;/
>
> however I digress even though automatic-feed-links can have the luxury of
> being hardcoded it's not feasibly responsible of the theme developer to
> dismiss having it.
>
> however, these themes that come in, they're designed with a look and thats
> what people are grabbing those themes for, .. that look.   It's a convience
> not a necessity to require custom-backgrounds because it changes the overall
> themes default representation.
>
> ^ it's all good either way for me, if its a must-have and someone tells me
> its a must have then sure, but thats not what I started asking about, it was
> post thumbnails.
>
> Take P2 for example.   Would having post-thumbnails *really* be a must for
> that theme to have included?   I'm sure it could be utilized sure, but does
> it 'have' to ?
>
>
>
> ----- 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 6:54 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Theme Review Codex Page
>
> "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. :)
>
> Chip
>
> 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/f35e3293/attachment-0001.htm>