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

[Mario Peshev]

"SHOULD NOT" is undoubtedly easier to understand than "REQUIRED NOT to" to me.

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 5:52 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>