[theme-reviewers] use of constants in textdomain

[Chip Bennett]

Oh, I agree completely. Just because it's *required* doesn't mean that the
reviewer can't approve it upon the stipulation that the issue is resolved
in the next revision.

Provided that the reviewers don't start taking heat for making subjective
decisions, I think it would expedite the process to emphasize that such
things are at the discretion of the reviewer. If something like the
textdomain issue is the only observation in a review, I'm certainly not
going to criticize the reviewer exercising such discretion.

Chip

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> Although not technically correct to use a variable for the textdomain as
> described by Mark; and as Justin noted this is a 3.3 requirement ... we may
> also want to revisit this as a non-show-stopper issue.
>
> If this is the only issue with the theme then I would expect the theme to,
> for all intent and purpose, work correctly except for letter-perfect i18n
> implementation.
> It seems if we truly want to start expediting the process to get themes
> reviewed we need to revisit some of the guidelines and how they are being
> interpreted ... for instance I would, given the condition there are no
> significant issues otherwise, resolve this theme as approved and note the
> correction should be made in the next (hopefully soon) release.
>
> In this particular case, it would be a logical conclusion to use a
> variable as the textdomain, I had come to the same idea myself prior to
> reading Mark Jaquith's post on the subject.
>
>
> Cais.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Justin Tadlock <justin at justintadlock.com
> > wrote:
>
>> **
>> Technically, themes will be translated when using a constant or
>> variable.  Where it's problematic is with automated translation tools as
>> mentioned by Mark's post.
>>
>> For the 3.3 proposed guidelines, we're requiring it (is it themes
>> submitted 30 days after 3.3 is released?):
>>
>> http://make.wordpress.org/themes/2011/11/10/wordpress-3-3-proposed-guidelines-revisions/
>>
>>
>> On 12/16/2011 10:58 AM, Paul de Wouters wrote:
>>
>> Referring to this post by Mark Jaquith:
>>
>> http://markjaquith.wordpress.com/2011/10/06/translating-wordpress-plugins-and-themes-dont-get-clever/
>>
>>  is this cause for rejection?
>>
>>  thanks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://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/20111216/75b54399/attachment-0001.htm>