[theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice

[Merci Javier]

Crystal clear to me, Chip.

Thanks.

Merci


On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/edf1e763/attachment.htm>