[theme-reviewers] Question on Custom Headers

[Sayontan Sinha]

>
> But since you're not actually implementing a *custom image header*, you
> should NOT use the "custom-header" tag. That tag is reserved for *custom
> image headers*.
>

The "custom-header" tag is NOT reserved for "custom image headers" - at
least not as per any documentation. It is quite old and as I mentioned,
Kubrick has carried the tag since long before something like the
add_custom_image_header came into existence (not that Kubrick is the
benchmark, but it still used to be the default theme prior to TwentyTen). If
the definition or the intent of the tag changed somewhere down the line, it
was not communicated clearly enough. Just like the other older "custom"
tags, "custom-background" or "custom-colors", any theme that allowed for
differently styling the header/background/font colors could use these tags
(and should still be allowed, IMHO).

Anyway, I don't mind removing the tag or amending my code to support it -
let's see.

With regards to the guidelines, the only reason I brought this up is because
a reviewer told me I have to implement it. Now whether the reviewer's remark
was based on the "custom-header" tag or because my theme does indeed allow
true customization of the header in various forms (essentially letting you
do everything the native "custom image header" lets you do including
changing the text color, hiding the text, and a lot more), I don't know.
Regardless, since this issue was never brought up with my theme until the
last review, I believe ambiguity exists. Whether or not you decide to reword
the guidelines is up to you - I was merely providing feedback, because
apparently my interpretation of it differed from the reviewer's.

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> As Otto said: you're not actually incorporating a *custom image header*.
> You're actually implementing something more akin to a "custom header
> background".
>
> As Otto said: a *custom image header* is a *fixed-dimension* image, used AS
> the site header (think along the lines of a *banner*). You're simply
> allowing a header style customization.
>
> But since you're not actually implementing a *custom image header*, you
> should NOT use the "custom-header" tag. That tag is reserved for *custom
> image headers*.
>
> As far as I can tell, the Guidelines in this regard are fine, and account
> for this use case without problem.
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Sayontan Sinha <sayontan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The word "recommended" is bolded for a reason. If it said "required"
>>> then we'd be having a different kind of discussion.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but it also says that "if incorporated" I have to support the core WP
>> implementation and that is what was pointed out to me in my last review.
>> Technically though, as you have said, this functionality is not a "Custom
>> Image Header".
>>
>> I have the capability to define a header background like Kubrick did (and
>> I call it a header background). In one way or the other this is still a
>> customizable header, and the theme is tagged with "custom-header" because of
>> it. AFAIK the tags don't distinguish between custom image header and custom
>> header background, and the review team doesn't distinguish either. A
>> reviewer probably sees "custom-header", then looks for a call to
>> add_custom_image_header(). So maybe this is something to note in the review
>> guidelines, then? Or maybe the text for this particular guideline has to be
>> amended?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Sayontan Sinha <sayontan at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > So a question for the reviewers - the review guidelines state:
>>> >
>>> >> Theme is recommended to incorporate the following WordPress core
>>> >> functionality, but is not required to do so. However, if incorporated,
>>> >> functionality must support the core WordPress implementation:
>>> >>
>>> >> add_custom_image_header().
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Is it okay to not use the above function with a custom header then?
>>>
>>> The word "recommended" is bolded for a reason. If it said "required"
>>> then we'd be having a different kind of discussion.
>>>
>>> If you're doing something like allowing the user to select tiled
>>> images and implementing them through CSS backgrounds, then that's not
>>> really a "custom image header", as I see it. That's more like a
>>> "custom header background" or something. Maybe the wording could be
>>> better in your theme, to distinguish it? Wording is tricky that way.
>>>
>>> -Otto
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sayontan Sinha
>> http://mynethome.net | http://mynethome.net/blog
>> --
>> Beating Australia in Cricket is like killing a celebrity. The death gets
>> more coverage than the crime.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Sayontan Sinha
http://mynethome.net | http://mynethome.net/blog
--
Beating Australia in Cricket is like killing a celebrity. The death gets
more coverage than the crime.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110907/a28648d8/attachment.htm>