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

Sun Jul 3 13:09:19 UTC 2011

>
> *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...
> *

Revisit the beginning of the thread. I didn't admonish anyone for
passive-aggression, Nacin did. I only took issue with the fact that Nacin
called me out for something most of us are guilty of. If anything, I
defended passive-aggression.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>

-- 
-Darren Slatten
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110703/7143f4ee/attachment-0001.htm>