[theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice

[Chip Bennett]

The reason to leave in the "relativity" of the version is to ensure that
the standard remains the same. If through oversight the guidelines aren't
updated in a timely manner when 3.5 comes out, the guidelines remain
explicit regarding acceptable degree of backward compatibility. The reason
for the current "must not"/"shall not" criticality is intentional, since
the best-practice/recommended degree of backward compatibility is *none*.

Here is the current wording:


   - Themes *must not* support backward compatibility for more than two
   major WordPress versions (currently, that means versions prior to WordPress
   3.2)
   - Themes *should not* support backward compatibility for more than one
   major WordPress version (currently, that means versions prior to WordPress
   3.3)

Would something like this be more clear?


   - Themes *must not* support backward compatibility for more than two
   major WordPress versions (currently, that means Themes may support backward
   compatibility for WordPress versions 3.3 and 3.2, but must not support
   backward compatibility for WordPress version 3.1 or older)
   - Themes *should not* support backward compatibility for more than one
   major WordPress version (currently, that means Themes should not support
   backward compatibility for WordPress versions 3.2 or older)

Though I hesitate to get so...wordy.

Chip

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Edward Caissie
<edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm actually proposing something much more simpler:
>
>
> The oldest version that may be currently supported is 3.2; although it is
>> strongly recommended the oldest version currently supported be 3.3.
>>
>
> Leave out the relativity of the version ... just simply state what the
> versions are.
>
>
> Cais.
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Tom Barrett <tcbarrett at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi folks
>>
>> I personally find the previous and current wording ambiguous/unclear. Too
>> many negatives and easily taking out of context. Apologies for stirring
>> things up, but would this wording help (be acceptable):
>>
>> - Themes must not provide backward compatibility for out-of-date versions
>> of WordPress.
>>  = This includes the use of conditional function_exists() wrappers.
>>  = Versions are considered out of date if they are 3 versions (or more)
>> behind the current version. The current version is 3.4 which means version
>> 3.1 is out of date.
>> - Theme should not support backward compatibility for the version which
>> will become out of date with the next release. Avoid supporting version 3.2
>> as it will soon become out of date.
>>
>> It's easier to track back the meaning of the words?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> --
>> http://www.tcbarrett.com | http://gplus.to/tcbarrett |
>> http://twitter.com/tcbarrett
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20120823/6a3fd338/attachment.htm>