[theme-reviewers] Question on Custom Headers

[Chip Bennett]

Whoops; yeah, good call. I had forgotten that the "custom-header" tag
predated the custom image header functionality.

So, forget that part of what I said. :)

Chip

On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Sayontan Sinha <sayontan at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110907/38b7932c/attachment-0001.htm>