[theme-reviewers] Theme Review Codex Page: Addressing Recent Feedback

[Chip Bennett]

Good afternoon, all!

I have started making an attempt to incorporate recent feedback and
constructive criticism into the Theme Review Codex page:

1) "Last Updated" line added
2) Separated Functionality from Tags and Hooks
3) Under Functionality, indicated which functionality is required and
recommended, and tied relevant function calls/xrefs to functionality
4) Under Functionality, for recommended functionality, indicated that
functionality is not required, but if implemented, must support WordPress
core functionality
5) Under Tags and Hooks, separated template-part tags
(get_header/get_footer/get_sidebar/etc.) from other tags and hooks
6) Under Tags and Hooks, indicated that template files
(header/footer/sidebar/etc), if incorporated in the Theme, must be called
using the correct template tag.
7) Replaced "must" and "should" throughout with "required", to avoid
confusion. All Guidelines should now read as "required", "recommended", or
"optional".

I made a few changes yesterday, too:

1) Added all missing Codex xrefs
2) Added links to Log Deprecated Notices plugin, Debogger plugin, and W3C
validator (XHTML, CSS, and Unicorn) under Guidelines/Code Quality
3) Added emphasis to statement instructing developer to ensure Theme meets
Guidelines and is tested using Theme Unit Tests prior to submission
4) Updated the Resources links and Codex xrefs

Hopefully, these changes will address much of the feedback we have received
recently.

Please take a look, to make sure I didn't screw anything up, or put in any
incorrect/inaccurate information.

(My next step will be to start looking at the cross-referenced functions,
tags, hooks, etc., and see if any of that can be improved upon in the name
of helping to educate Theme developers regarding their necessity and proper
use. Unless we can find a good way to incorporate such information into the
Theme Review page in a manner that does not detract from conveying the
existing information, I intend to put any such information on the
cross-referenced Codex pages themselves.)

Thanks,
Chip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100826/f755ae51/attachment.htm>