[theme-reviewers] use of constants in textdomain

[Chip Bennett]

I don't think the criticality needs to change; rather, it's more a matter
of how the reviewer handles the observations. Required things are still
required, and I don't think that should change.

One way to think about it might be in terms of obvious end-user impact. The
textdomain thing is a perfect example: correct implementation is required,
but the likelihood of the end user being adversely impacted if the current
version of the Theme gets approved is pretty minimal. So, does it provide a
better experience for all involved if we approve the Theme, educate the
developer about the proper implementation, and then require it to be
addressed in the next revision?

I think so.

Chip

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM, James Laws <jamielaws at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >>
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/aa99b6f2/attachment.htm>