[theme-reviewers] Question about ob_start and ob_get_clean (Vicky Arulsingam)

[Chip Bennett]

This is probably the point where I say that, for me at least, this thread
has run its course, and as it currently stands, I don't think I'll have
anything else constructive to add.

I don't look at Otto's mention of 8 rather disparate people all agreeing on
an issue as being an appeal to authority*, but rather a matter of 8 out of 9
voices discussing this particular topic all agreeing. It could be that
everyone else on the mail list has simply ignored this thread, and thus are
not speaking in agreement with your position; alternatively, it could be
that the majority actually disagrees with you.

In other words: 89% of the people participating in this thread disagree with
your position.

And speaking for myself personally: with respect to consideration of
WordPress "best practices": I defer strongly to Nacin, Otto, Scribu, and
Dion. They eat, drink, sleep, and breathe the WordPress codebase. I respect
their opinions and expertise on such matters. There are certainly times that
I disagree with them on WordPress issues, but their arguments simply carry
more weight. (Here's where the concept of meritocracy applies.)

As far as this list goes, and the WPTRT in general, all input is welcomed.
This list exists in order to solicit input from the Theme developer
community. But you'll find that the WPTRT operates within certain principles
that, while not entirely immutable, are only likely to be changed with
extremely persuasive arguments and extensive agreement within the Theme
developer community.

One such principle is that Themes and Plugins serve different purposes, and
that some functionality is appropriate for one or the other, but not both.
While the exact differentiation is certainly subject to interpretation, any
Theme functionality that deviates considerably from presentation of content
is going to come under heightened scrutiny. Further, functionality that
involves site administration, security, optimization, etc. - and especially
such functionality that should persist regardless of what Theme is currently
in use - is generally going to be deemed to be "Plugin territory".

Thus, Otto's comment about recognizing that a "Theme is a Theme" is both
valid and relevant.

Another such principle is that what is acceptable/appropriate for private
Themes may not be appropriate for a Theme intended for general, public
distribution. Again: the exact differentiation is subject to interpretation.

Thus, Otto's statement that Themes should not use ob_cache does not apply to
Themes in general, but rather is made in the context of what is appropriate
for Themes intended for general, public distribution.

I should also point out: most of what you see on this list represents the
opinion of the speaker only. Nothing you read becomes matter of "official"
WPTRT policy until you see such statements in conjunction with the terms
"Guidelines" and "required", and followed up by related posts on the
make.wordpress.org/themes site, and changes to the Theme Review Codex page.
So, don't interpret academic/theoretical discussions or personal opinions as
declarations of Theme Review requirements.

Thus, statements made in this thread, by me, Otto, Nacin, Scribu, Dion,
Justin, Simon, and Ryan merely represent opinions, and personal
contributions to an ongoing discussion.

Chip

* Though, if you knew the history and the wildly disparate experience,
involvement, and viewpoints of the particular 8 people, and the nature of
past disagreements, you would likely be equally amazed at such conclusive
agreement on this issue.

p.s. if you're going to admonish others for their passive-aggression, you
should probably try to use less of it yourself. Glass houses and all...

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 6:41 AM, Darren Slatten <darrenslatten at gmail.com>wrote:

> *Look, if you can't even agree on the simple fact that a theme is
>> supposed to be a *theme*, then this discussion is getting into the
>> "pointless" territory pretty darned fast.
>> *
>
>
> Invalid and irrelevant.
>
>
>
> *The only person I see being "pretentious" here is you. Nothing but long
>> endless diatribes about how your code is right and everybody else who
>> disagrees with you is wrong.
>> *
>
>
> I've cited sources where necessary and relied on simple principles of
> logic to rebut invalid arguments. I believe I am right, but I do not
> assume I am right, and I do not build my arguments on assumptions that I
> am right. It is for these reasons that I am not pretentious.
>
> My responses are only as long as is necessary to adequately explain my
> views. This requires considerably more effort than, say, expressing
> one's opinions as facts and providing no explanation or reasoning.
>
>
>
> *I would point out that the people disagreeing with you are core
>> developers, admins of the theme review system, design experts, and
>> people like me who are just plain all-around-general-know-it-alls (thank
>> you very much), but then you'd probably just take that as some kind of
>> appeal to authority or something.
>> *
>
>
> Your argument is a textbook example of invalid reasoning based on a
> logical fallacy that's been understood and documented for hundreds of
> years. It's not like I'm making this stuff up. And don't forget: I'm not
> saying "everyone is wrong"--I'm only saying *"Yes-huh...you can even go
> ask Andrew Nacin!"* is not a valid argument.
>
>
>
> *At some point, you're simply going to have to sit down and say to
>> yourself "hey, why are all these people, who really do know things and
>> are widely considered to be experts, disagreeing with me?"
>> *
>
>
> I disagree. Solving problems requires facts and logic. The people
> involved are irrelevant.
>
>
>
> *Maybe it's because you haven't explained your reasoning properly. That's
>> a possibility, certainly. I would have to say that nothing you've stated
>> makes sense to me, even though you continually state that you've
>> explained something already.
>> *
>
>
> I don't want to waste everyone else's time recapping what's already been
> said, but if you'd like, I can email you privately and try to get you up
> to speed.
>
>
>
> *On the other hand, perhaps you're just going to have to accept the fact
>> that, you know what? You might just be wrong. I know, shocker there, but
>> it is a possibility that you're going to have to face up to at some
>> point.
>> *
>
>
> (Reducing this issue to terms of "I'm right and you're wrong" feels
> selfish and primitive, but I'll humor you anyway.)
>
> I don't mind being wrong. I actually appreciate being proven wrong,
> which is why I constantly offer specific examples (easiest to disprove).
> I went as far as to write example code--essentially handed everyone a
> loaded gun--and yet all I got in return was a bunch of limp excuses,
> invalid reasoning, and best practices straight from the "in a perfect
> World" cookbook.
>
> At this point, I'm not even sure what you're arguing
> for or against. As far as I can tell, you're just butthurt that the new
> guy spoke without paying his respects to your circle-jerk of
> "collaborators" and you need to vent. But who knows, maybe you've got a
> secret stash of valid arguments that you've been withholding. If
> so, please use them to "prove me wrong."
>
> Here's a reminder of what's (supposedly) being argued. You can add to
> the discussion by providing information that supports the first set of
> claims or refutes the second set of claims:
>
>
> *Otto et al:*
>
>    - Themes must not use output buffering.
>    - There is no reason for a theme to use output buffering.
>    - Themes should not allow users to modify the behavior of plugins.
>
>
> *Darren:*
>
>    - Themes should be permitted to use output buffering.
>    - There are some cases where output buffering is the only solution.
>    - There are some cases where theme-implemented output buffering is the
>    best solution.
>
>
>
>
> *However, whenever I see a thread where Me, Nacin, Chip, Dion, scribu,
>> Justin Tadlock, Simon, and Ryan Hellyer are all actually *agreeing*
>> about something, then I'd have to say that that is pretty darned
>> unusual. So, it's a point that you just might have to consider.
>> *
>
>
> That's not a point. That's an irrelevant observation. Unsupported
> opinions, conceived under rare conditions, are still unsupported
> opinions. Do you really expect me to intentionally remove functionality
> from my theme, because 8 people (I don't personally know) share the same
> unsupported opinion?
>
>
>
> *Your solutions don't even solve the problem, as I see it, they only
>> create new ones. Output buffering? I mean, come on. Do you really
>> think it's better to delay sending content to the page so you can run
>> a bunch of string manipulation code to modify it, as opposed to simply
>> creating the content you want correctly in the first place?
>> *
>
>
> This has all been addressed already. Please stop polluting this thread
> with more of the same invalid arguments I've already addressed. You're
> making it difficult for others to follow the real issues.
>
>
>
> *Look, running a website, and especially optimizing one, involves more
>> than just changing the source code of the page. If you're going to
>> serve things up to the public, there's more to it than *just*
>> WordPress. Being a webmaster is a full time job for some people. There
>> is arcane knowledge that you have to learn. And sometimes, that
>> knowledge lies outside your sphere.
>> *
>
>
> Cool story, bro.
>
>
>
>
> *If you don't know to set caching headers properly, then you should
>> learn it instead of trying to do optimization in other places that
>> won't even help you nearly as much.
>> *
>
>
> Cool.
>
>
>
>
> *This is kinda like all those CSS-compression things I continually see
>> people trying to do. If you haven't even gotten the browsers looking
>> at your website to cache the data properly, then compressing your CSS
>> doesn't make a lick of difference if they're still downloading it
>> every single time. You're optimizing the wrong things. Focus on the
>> basics first. You only have to resort to the silly ideas like CSS
>> compression once you've exhausted the traditional, and
>> tried-tested-true, options.
>> *
>
>
> For a site like ottopress.com, which takes more than 10 seconds to load<http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110703_H0_f437e481696e55bb6b01c73d3a558037/>,
>
> the benefits of minifying CSS may be difficult to see. For a site like
> seomofo.com, which loads in under 2 seconds<http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110703_YD_a5d3672cb3873083dd8dc0fa83ffda79/>,
> the benefit would
> be relatively more significant. Some webmasters just have higher standards
> than others, and as a theme developer, I try to accommodate the needs of
> both types.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110703/28e46210/attachment.htm>