[theme-reviewers] @package WordPress in DocBlock

[Chip Bennett]

Hey, if you think that it's time to move in that direction, I'm all for it!
:)

I generally do list @package/@subpackage as *recommended* in my reviews now
anyway, when I see Themes using @package: WordPress. But if we want to begin
formalizing it, that's great.

But I do see this as RECOMMENDED, for the foreseeable future.

Chip

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Edward Caissie
<edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> Although we have no say over how Plugins and their guidelines are created
> and implemented it does strike me as a good idea to follow suit on items
> that make sense; in this case I would agree the Theme guidelines should be
> making similar references to how the theme's inline documentation (i.e.:
> phpDocs) is written, more for some sort of consistent approach than anything
> else.
>
> This is something that can be put forward as part of the "new" v3.3
> guidelines: Documentation Recommendations (and Requirements, as applicable).
>
>
> Cais.
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>
>> Are we allowing "@package WordPress" references in theme DocBlocks?
>>
>> I found one list reference<http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2010-November/003118.html> questioning
>> the practice based on plugin guidelines, but available themes such as Duster
>> and Coraline still have them. Should they be accepted?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20111015/700e004f/attachment.htm>