[theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice

[Doug Stewart]

Chip:
Add one word to enhance clarity: "prior". I think that's the
falling-down part. So it becomes "Themes must not support backward
compatibility for more than two PRIOR major WordPress versions". This
excludes the CURRENT version explicitly from "backwards
compatibility".

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>



-- 
-Doug