[theme-reviewers] Guidelines regarding Theme Names

Mon Aug 30 15:01:25 UTC 2010

if the simplist theme didn't use comments he wouldnt have 'required' comments.php with it so yeah

so under the required theme files 

comments.php (if theme uses comments)

?

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Chip Bennett 
  To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org 
  Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 7:59 AM
  Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Guidelines regarding Theme Names

  Then we need to address the criterion that Comments are required functionality.

  I think the best course would be to add an exception statement, to allow for specialized Themes - although personally I don't think barebones support for comments is all that much of an encumbrance. Regardless, I think comments.php should still be listed as a required template file. (The above exception would be implied here.)

  Chip

  On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:

    Very well ... so we are eliminating all the "pure" CMS themes that would not use comments?!

    If I was to develop a theme that is strictly for the purpose of serving information (whatever it may be) then I have no use for comments. If the  theme is presented in that fashion it should be reviewed as a special case and potentially acceptable.

    Forcing the inclusion of tempalte files that serve no purpose to the theme is simply forcing the theme to be bloated with unused files.

    Cais.

    On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

      The issue is that comments_template() is required for correct implementation of Comments, and the use of comments_template() requires a template file to be passed as an argument.

      So, if Themes incorporate comments functionality (which is a requirement), they must use comments_template(), ergo, they must have a comments template file.

      Chip

      On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:

        Has anyone pinged this directly to nacin? It may just be an oversite or a core issue that should be addressed versus a template file inclusion issue.

        I'm having a hard time believing the basic minimal requirements need to be extended beyond including index.php and style.css (with scrennshot.png only being required for the Extend/Theme repository).

        Cais.

        On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <philip at frumph.net> wrote:

          that original simplist theme that came up in this theme reviewers thread + comment from otto & nacin

          just give it a try with the minimal theme and nacin's plugin, it comes up

          (and no, no other deprecated messages come up)

          - Phil

          The official word is that the 'default' functions that fallback in WP are never really updated and who knows if they're going to be in there anymore in the future.
            ----- Original Message ----- 
            From: Edward Caissie 
            To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org 
            Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 7:41 AM
            Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Guidelines regarding Theme Names

            So no comments.php file throws a deprecated message at you? That doesn't seem right ...

            What theme is this happening with? I'd like to see this myself ... and are there other tempalte files we will need to make requirements for similar reasons?

            Cais.

            On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:38 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <philip at frumph.net> wrote:

              While your in there add comments.php to the minimal theme files requirement, official deprecated message comes up without it.

                ----- Original Message ----- 
                From: Chip Bennett 
                To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org 
                Sent: Monday, August 30, 2010 7:35 AM
                Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Guidelines regarding Theme Names

                Right on. I threw that together really quickly (and tend to err more toward a "formal" tone anyway. 

                Looks good! Some of those (especially the "version-specific, markup-related terms" item. Could probably use more content there. What else similar don't we want in Theme names?

                Chip

                On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:

                  I didn't change the intent of the section, but I did go in and "lightened-up" the text a bit ... it's a little less "formal" but the meaning is the same.

                  Cais.

                  On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

                    See here: 
                    http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Theme_Name

                    Please advise, comment, correct, and/or add appropriate Theme Name-related guidelines. I notice I'm running into several instances where I have to comment on the Theme Name. Some objective guidelines in this area will be helpful.

                    Chip

                    _______________________________________________
                    theme-reviewers mailing list
                    theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
                    http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

                  _______________________________________________
                  theme-reviewers mailing list
                  theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
                  http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

----------------------------------------------------------------

                _______________________________________________
                theme-reviewers mailing list
                theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
                http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

              _______________________________________________
              theme-reviewers mailing list
              theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
              http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

--------------------------------------------------------------------

            _______________________________________________
            theme-reviewers mailing list
            theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
            http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

          _______________________________________________
          theme-reviewers mailing list
          theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
          http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

        _______________________________________________
        theme-reviewers mailing list
        theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
        http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

      _______________________________________________
      theme-reviewers mailing list
      theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
      http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

    _______________________________________________
    theme-reviewers mailing list
    theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
    http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  theme-reviewers mailing list
  theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
  http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100830/c1f7468f/attachment-0001.htm>