[theme-reviewers] Theme Options and Functions

[Demetris Kikizas]

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Jon Cave <jon at lionsgoroar.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Demetris Kikizas <kikizas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> For example, why serialization of options should be even a recommendation?
>
> It's not, that was just suggested in Chip's first email and, from what
> I can see, it was decided not to be included in the recommendations.
> Only prefixing functions/options was agreed upon.
>
It may not become a recommendation, but it shows the way of thinking
that brought us to this point.

This way of thinking is perverse.

Instead of looking for solutions to practical problems, it comes up
with solutions for problems that do not exist.

Recommendations and requirements for themes should only be there if
they solve practical problems.

For example:

Never hardcode the URI of your theme’s stylesheet.  It is not allowed
for this or that reason.

Or:

wp_head() is strictly required for this and that reason.

The way I see it, a requirement should only be added when we are
confronted with a real, practical problem and, after we explore all
possible solutions, we conclude that the only way to solve the problem
is by a formal, strict requirement.

Adding requirements for any other reasons only causes problems.

Cheers,

Demetris
http://op111.net/code/wp-xo ‹ Extra Options, a practical plugin for WordPress