michael at mfields.org
Tue Jul 5 03:30:08 UTC 2011
On Jul 4, 2011, at 8:24 PM, Chip Bennett wrote:
> All else being equal and being implemented properly, I don't see any
> reason why that should cause a problem.
> Given that you're not actually required to provide a version of the JS
> file with inline documentation (i.e. the condensed version would be
> perfectly valid on its own), providing a second, documented version is
> an example of going above and beyond. IMHO anything that adds
> documentation to a Theme should be encouraged.
> On 7/4/11, Michael Fields <michael at mfields.org> wrote:
>> public theme. Thing is, I've grown quite accustomed to documenting my code
>> question is almost 200 lines long and I only see it grown. Fully documented,
>> it could easily become 3-400 lines. I'm projecting about 50% of the code
>> will be documentation when all is said and done.
>> I would like to include it into the theme much the same way that WordPress
>> included js. Having a "dev" version and a "live" version. The live version
>> would contain the same functional code minus excess whitespace and comments.
>> I would not use any compression or package application to obfuscate the
>> Just wondering if this is something that would pass theme review. I know
>> questions like this have been asked before, but I honestly can not remember
>> the outcome.
>> Here's the script:
>> Best wishes,
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Sent from my mobile device
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
More information about the theme-reviewers