[theme-reviewers] more experienced feedback

Sat Dec 24 18:51:03 UTC 2011

Well, answers that one, then. :)

Any other potentially relevant APIs that might be included in Themes?

Chip

On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com> wrote:

> From http://www.google.com/webfonts#AboutPlace:about
>
> "Open Source Fonts
>
> All of the fonts are Open Source. This means that you are free to
> share your favorites with friends and colleagues. You can even improve
> or customize them and collaborate with the original designer. And you
> can use them in every way you want, privately or commercially – in
> print, on your computer, or in your websites."
>
> The font contribution form also requires a checkbox statement that the
> submitter owns all rights, and a choice of SIL/OpenFont License,
> Apache, or "other open-source license". No indication of which others
> they'll consider, but the prose description on the about page
> certainly at least fits with GPL in spirit.
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
> > I don't know that all of the Google Font API-available fonts are
> > GPL-compatible...
> >
> > Chip
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Edward Caissie <
> edward.caissie at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Why not include, from your example, the Google Font in the package? Is
> >> there a benefit to making an API call versus referencing a locally
> available
> >> resource?
> >>
> >>
> >> Cais.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I'm wondering why it would be a *bad* thing to say that all Themes must
> >>> be self-contained, and should not hotlink any resources?
> >>>
> >>> (I think API references are okay; e.g. Google Fonts - if they're not
> >>> there, the CSS will fall back to another font, so the experience might
> be
> >>> degraded, but it will degrade mostly gracefully.)
> >>>
> >>> Chip
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Edward Caissie
> >>> <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> @Kirk - Leave a comment to the effect of what Otto has suggested why
> >>>> this method should not be used.
> >>>>
> >>>> @Otto et al. - This should go into the Guidelines as *not* "best
> >>>> practice", again for the same reason. "Banning" seems like such a
> harsh word
> >>>> to use, I'm thinking simply not-approve-able due to the potential for
> >>>> "common" end-user conditions to cause the theme to simply not work,
> i.e.:
> >>>> intranet installation.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm thinking something along these lines for the Guidelines: Themes
> must
> >>>> be self-contained within themselves and/or the WordPress core
> functionality.
> >>>> For example, externally referenced files may not always be available
> to the
> >>>> end-user and therefore should not be used.
> >>>>
> >>>> The question is now where to put that into the guidelines as I
> recommend
> >>>> it become effective with the "new" 3.3 guidelines. Any one have any
> >>>> suggestions?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Cais.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca>
> wrote:
> >>>>> > In particular, the theme uses a bunch of external APIs for the post
> >>>>> > formats;
> >>>>> > I've searched the mailing list archives, and didn't find anything
> >>>>> > explicitly
> >>>>> > banning it, but, well, it weirds me out. A look at how the options
> >>>>> > are
> >>>>> > implemented would be appreciated too.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While there's nothing wrong with the files he's including and the
> >>>>> sources are trustworthy enough, these files should be included in the
> >>>>> theme and not added directly from external sites.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In particular:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wp_register_style('html5reset',
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 'http://html5resetcss.googlecode.com/files/html5-reset-1.4.css
> ',false,$theme_data['Version']);
> >>>>> wp_enqueue_style( 'html5reset');
> >>>>>
> >>>>> wp_register_script('yui-css','
> http://yui.yahooapis.com/2.8.0r4/build/yuiloader/yuiloader-min.js
> ',false,'2.8.0r4');
> >>>>> wp_enqueue_script('yui-css');
> >>>>> wp_register_script('jquery-template',
> >>>>> 'http://nje.github.com/jquery-tmpl/jquery.tmpl.js', array('jquery'),
> >>>>> '0.1');
> >>>>> wp_enqueue_script('jquery-template');
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This is bad because it adds a dependency on those sites. This means
> >>>>> the theme won't work for some cases, such as on an internal intranet
> >>>>> where the user viewing the site has no access to the public internet
> >>>>> (this is a *far* more common use case than you might think).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> While there's no explicit guidelines prohibiting it that I found in
> >>>>> the theme review list, I kinda sorta think that it should be banned.
> >>>>> There's no good reason a theme can't simply package up these
> libraries
> >>>>> in the theme, presuming the licenses on the libraries is compatible.
> >>>>> YUI is BSD licensed, JQuery Template is MIT or GPLv2, and the reset
> >>>>> CSS is public domain. All compatible.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Otto
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111224/bda70552/attachment-0001.htm>