[theme-reviewers] unable to upload please advice

Thu Aug 23 19:37:53 UTC 2012

Haha, this is funny.

I think it's like when someone says "I'll see you next Friday." (to them,
in their mind they literally mean *the very next* Friday) but the other
person almost always asks "Wait, *this* Friday or the Friday *after* this
Friday?"

The problem is that even if a statement is perfectly and logically clear,
people will still misinterpret it. The English language is simply too
loose, we have so many words, meanings and interpretations from culture to
culture and region to region etc. English is no where near as literal as
most languages.

Clarity:

   - 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)

This does indeed work for clarity, but as Chip pointed out it's not very
future proof, is some going to go and change it every time there's an
update?

So instead why not use a placeholder example?:

   - Themes *must not* support backward compatibility for more than two
   major WordPress versions (for example, if the current version was 1.3 this
   would mean you could not support versions prior to WordPress 1.1)
   - Themes *should not* support backward compatibility for more than one
   major WordPress version (for example, if the current version was 1.3 this
   would mean you could not support versions prior to WordPress 1.2)

Note: That's still wrong (as the second line cancels out the first), just
wanted to illustrate how you could use an example instead of the actual
current version.

Bryan Phillip Hadaway

Web & Graphic Designer
calmestghost.com
bhadaway at gmail.com

*Socialize:* Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/calmestghost> |
Twitter<http://twitter.com/calmestghost> |
LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/calmestghost> |
Google+<https://plus.google.com/104582075016689917593>

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Merci Javier <mercijavier at gmail.com>wrote:

>
> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120823/33f4f0bf/attachment-0001.htm>