[theme-reviewers] use of constants in textdomain

[James Laws]

Perhaps we need to redefine some elements.

1. Deal breaker
2. Required
3. Recommended

;)

James

On Friday, December 16, 2011, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> 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 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/20111216/7486a41e/attachment.htm>