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

Thu Nov 10 16:04:16 UTC 2011

I'm a fan of REQUIRED and MUST NOT for anything that we're actually
requiring in the guidelines -- the phrasing "required not" just sounds
wrong to me, and I'm a native English speaker! but whether it's
"required not" or "must not" I strongly feel that requirements
language ought to be unambiguous.

On the other hand, save "it would be nice to" and the like for
discussions of good practice, design, and the like. We have plenty of
room for those when we're interacting with theme authors as human
beings. But requirements in the guidelines are meant to be things that
are pretty cut and dried. You support menus or you don't. You use
TimThumb or you don't...

On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 10:52 AM, 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
>
>