[theme-reviewers] Updating Custom Backgrounds and Custom Headers for WordPress 3.4

Fri Apr 6 20:23:19 UTC 2012

I'm not suggesting *either* WITH *or* WITHOUT arguments be required. I'm
saying that either one should be acceptable, as determined by the Theme
developer.

I'm not sure that either WITH or WITHOUT should even be recommended,
especially since this is a clean-break deprecation we're talking about
here. The functionality is changing, so Child Themes that depend on the old
functionality WILL break. There's just no way around that, really. So, I'm
advocating that we give the most flexibility possible to the Theme
developer to decide whether or not to include arguments for custom
backgrounds. (Custom headers, on the other hand, will require at least
*some* arguments; namely, width and height at a minimum.)

I would suggest that the guideline requirement should simply be left at
"implemented properly" - as in, consistent with the core implementation; no
more, no less.

Chip

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> Create a Child-Theme intended to ship with a different default background
> and then test ... let me know your thinking then. If Child-Themes are going
> to be added at 3.4 as it appears they are, then other features should play
> nice with that ideal.
>
> You appear to be choosing a use-case that for the most part is ignoring
> the potential for Child-Themes to be, by default, different than their
> parents rather than requiring the end-user make additional setting changes
> to achieve what should be expected at the initial installation by default.
>
> ... and perhaps I am taking this from a personal perspective, too ... if I
> implement the new custom background method with the default $args set to
> anything, then I will be required (in good conscience) to go back to all my
> Child-Theme clients using different backgrounds that shipped with the code
> and (re-)write their `functions.php` file to provide that same
> functionality they expected and received when they acquired their
> Child-Theme. IMO, that is counter-productive to theme-authors if the WPTRT
> dictates that the proper use is to include the theme background color and
> image as part of the function implementation ... thus the implementation
> *without* arguments should be the requirement as the method currently
> stands.
>
>
> Cais.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't understand the leaning toward not using arguments? If the issue
>> is Child Theme-related, I must disagree with the conclusion. Child Theme
>> impact must be considered, of course - but that consideration should not
>> dictate completely. Why deny Theme developers the ability easily to declare
>> default background color, image, and style simply because Child Themes may
>> not play quite as nicely with the 3.4-style implementation?
>>
>> Chip
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> ok ... until this is sorted out (glad we are still in beta), an
>>> acceptable implementation of this functionality should be considered as
>>> simply:
>>>
>>> add_theme_support( 'custom-background' );
>>>
>>> NOTE: No $args added.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cais.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> PPS: Just running a few tests ... this does break Child-Themes that do
>>>> not implement add_theme_support ( 'custom-background', $child-theme-args )
>>>> specifically.
>>>> ... and the relevance of template versus stylesheet does not play into
>>>> fixing ... a strong recommendation to Child-Theme authors to maintain the
>>>> exact naming conventions of the images (in this case) should be made as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cais.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Konstantin Obenland <obenland at gmx.de>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Without testing it: What about using the placeholder? Doesn't that
>>>>> still work?
>>>>>
>>>>> Konstantin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 06.04.2012 um 20:14 schrieb Edward Caissie:
>>>>>
>>>>> I would think the stylesheet directory URI would be more correct than
>>>>> the template directory URI ... otherwise it looks like a great write-up
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cais.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nice writeup - thanks for posting it!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > Just posted to the make.themes site:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> http://make.wordpress.org/themes/2012/04/06/updating-custom-backgrounds-and-custom-headers-for-wordpress-3-4/
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Feel free to discuss and/or ask questions, either on the post or
>>>>>> here in the
>>>>>> > mail list.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120406/cd81d23a/attachment-0001.htm>