[theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice

[Chip Bennett]

That sounds like a very succinct solution! I'll add that in. Would that
remain ambiguous for anyone?

Thanks,

Chip

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120823/91b5cec8/attachment-0001.htm>