[theme-reviewers] use of constants in textdomain

[Mario Peshev]

In my opinion, James is pretty close to the real process now - there are
'deal breakers' such as SEO/SPAM links, security issues and critical visual
problems. All other required aspects are still required, but 1 or 2 only
usually can be ignored by commenting as "fix in the next release" as Chip
stated.

Mario Peshev
Training and Consulting Services @ DevriX
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mpeshev
http://devrix.com
http://peshev.net/blog



On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 1:21 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111217/2824feaf/attachment-0001.htm>