[theme-reviewers] Pagelines Themes: Theme URI

[Edward Caissie]

My role as devil's advocate has now been fulfilled ... (*grin*)

... as I said, I agree with your commentary.

*The Pro version of the theme is substantially different from the free
version to preclude its use as a Theme URI link.*

The question now becomes, what of all the author's other themes? I would
suggest something in your comments to the effect of recognizing this may be
an issue with future submissions of all their (current) themes.

I would also suggest using as much of this discussion in the comments as it
applies as well.


Cais.

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Line 12 in my editor: Author URI: http://www.pagelines.com
>> Thus the Author URI and the footer credit link (i.e.: the leaf image in
>> the footer) are the same.
>>
>
> Yep; not sure what I was thinking there. Author URI is defined, and is the
> same as what is used in the footer.
>
>>
>> I understand the issues you are having with the theme and the Theme URI,
>> and I have read your comments regarding the Theme URL and credit link but
>> you are extending the current Theme Review guidelines well beyond what is
>> currently written. If we are to adopt the additional criteria you have
>> written we cannot "not-approve" this theme based on it.
>>
>
> I disagree. The URI given for Theme URI is not specific to **the Theme
> submitted to the Repository**. Rather, the URI is for a *different *Theme
> - the paid-upgrade version of the submitted Theme.
>
> The only connection it has to the submitted Theme is that the submitted
> Theme is linked from the page (in a not-terribly-conspicuous manner, at
> that).
>
>>
>> We can go forward with the criteria, we can ask the author to correct this
>> issue as soon as possible as the current URI link will not be accepted in
>> the future. It is fundamentally important for us to not appear to make up
>> the rules as we go which is how this could easily be contrued.
>
>
> How so? The Guidelines state:
>
> Theme URI, if used, is *required* to link to a page specifically related
> to the Theme.
>
>
> The Theme URI in question does not meet this criterion, because the linked
> page *is not specific to the submitted Theme*.
>
>
>> This is an interpretation of the Theme URI usage and one that should be
>> clarified, I'm fine with wording to the effect of your comment being used to
>> add/update the Theme Review page, but I am not fine with a not-approve
>> resolution solely based on it.
>>
>> ... or in other words, as much as I agree with your comment and reasoning
>> we have nothing that clearly supports it beyond the discussions in this
>> thread. We have set the Theme Review page(s) in place so all will be able to
>> see and understand what is required and with that we have also set them as
>> the Theme Review Team's guideline for review commentary.
>>
>
> I disagree, for the reasons stated above.
>
> I'll clarify the comment regarding footer credit link, since it is
> consistent with the defined Author URI.
>
>>
>> A comment to the effect "the Theme URI is not specific enough" would
>> better suit the current written guidelines, unfortunately we cannot modify
>> our comments ...
>>
>
> We can always add new comments - which I am about to do.
>
>>
>> In this case, and as I see it all similar instances should be addressed on
>> a case-by-case scenario, the Theme URI issue should be addressed but if it
>> is the only issue (again, in this case) then I would likely advise the
>> author it needs to be corrected with the next update in the very near future
>> and approve it. IF there are any other issues, then this Theme URI issue
>> must be corrected with the next update or it will be resolved to
>> "not-approved".
>>
>> And again I disagree. The Theme URI not being correct is, IMHO,
> potentially a show-stopper.
>
> If Theme URI is the same as Author URI, or incorrectly points to WPORG, or
> something, fair enough. We can ask that to be fixed in the next version. But
> if Theme URI is intentionally being used to link to a page/site that is not
> accurate, appropriate, and specific to the Theme, then we shouldn't give
> that a pass.
>
> Chip
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101006/074b617b/attachment.htm>