[theme-reviewers] Proposed WordPress 3.3 Theme Review Guidelines Revisions

[Chip Bennett]

Again, see this link:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2119.txt

For simplicity and clarity, the only levels of criticality that we use are:

Required
Recommended
Optional

(We sometimes may refer to "Critical", but that refers to thinks like
security exploits, that generally don't appear in the Guidelines.)

Per this standard:

Required = Must = Shall (and "Required not" = "Must not" = "Shall Not")
Recommended = Should (and "Recommended not" = "Should not")
Optional = May

Any further stratification of criticality would only make the Guidelines
more confusing, and therefore more difficult to which to conform.

Chip

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Mario Peshev <mario at peshev.net> wrote:

> In my understanding there is a level of imperativeness between
> different statements, like:
>
>
> must
> have to
> be required to
> need to
> should
> could
> recommended
> might
> may
> nice to
>
> In a desc order, something like this. And the first two on the top are
> a bit harsh in my opinion.
>
> Of course, it's just a single opinion shared. I do browse a lot and
> have to write tons of documentations and support tickets on a daily
> basis and being very careful using different statements.
>
> Mario Peshev
> Training and Consulting Services @ DevriX
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mpeshev
> http://devrix.com
> http://peshev.net/blog
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
> > But that's the point: it *is* an imperative. That's the difference
> between
> > being REQUIRED to do/not to do something, versus something being
> RECOMMENDED
> > to do/not to do, or OPTIONAL.
> > For example: use of fopen() type functions: the requirement is
> imperative.
> > They MUST NOT be used.
> > Chip
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Mario Peshev <mario at peshev.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would not like 'must not' as too imperative - 'should not' or
> >> 'required to' + some other verb indicating negative sound better in my
> >> language at least.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Mario Peshev
> >> Training and Consulting Services @ DevriX
> >> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mpeshev
> >> http://devrix.com
> >> http://peshev.net/blog
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > We use the terminology from RFC 2119, in order to ensure consistency;
> >> > so:
> >> > "required", "recommended", or "optional".
> >> > I suppose we could replace "required not" with "must not"?
> >> > Chip
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Angelo Bertolli
> >> > <angelo.bertolli at gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Maybe the word FORBIDDEN could be used instead if it makes it
> clearer.
> >> >>
> >> >> On 11/10/2011 10:24 AM, Mario Peshev wrote:
> >> >> > Please do apologize my English, but as a foreign language 'REQUIRED
> >> >> > NOT to' written this way looks exactly like "NOT REQUIRED to'"
> (with
> >> >> > this exact casing).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Could be my bad, but these are guidelines and the cleaner, the
> >> >> > better.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Mario Peshev
> >> >> > Training and Consulting Services @ DevriX
> >> >> > http://www.linkedin.com/in/mpeshev
> >> >> > http://devrix.com
> >> >> > http://peshev.net/blog
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:17 PM, Chip Bennett <
> chip at chipbennett.net>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Good morning, Theme developers and reviewers!
> >> >> >> Now is the time to begin discussing and finalizing the changes to
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> Theme
> >> >> >> Review Guidelines pursuant to the release of WordPress 3.3. Please
> >> >> >> read
> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> discuss, here:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> http://make.wordpress.org/themes/2011/11/10/wordpress-3-3-proposed-guidelines-revisions/
> >> >> >> Note that, until WordPress 3.3 is released, these proposed
> revisions
> >> >> >> are a
> >> >> >> work-in-progress. Consider the above link as a "Request For
> >> >> >> Comment";
> >> >> >> if you
> >> >> >> have anything to add, or disagree with anything proposed, please
> >> >> >> comment
> >> >> >> accordingly. We post these, because we value your input and
> feedback
> >> >> >> as
> >> >> >> Theme developers.
> >> >> >> Thanks!
> >> >> >> Chip
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20111110/6ba31077/attachment.htm>