[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

[Chip Bennett]

This is the defining principle in the Guidelines:


   - Presentation Vs.
Functionality<http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Presentation_vs_Functionality>
   :
      - Since the purpose of Themes is to define the presentation of user
      content, Themes must not be used to define the generation of
user content,
      or to define Theme-independent site options or functionality.

It's somewhat difficult to try to list every possible issue in the
Guidelines, nor do we want to.

I would also like to reiterate: the intention has always been for continual
improvement of the Guidelines, and continually raising the quality
standard. Thus, there may be Themes in the directory that passed previous
iterations of the Guidelines, but that would not pass the current
iteration. Also, because reviews are performed by actual humans, who can
interpret Guidelines differently, the review standard probably will never
be 100% consistent. So, the "but there are other Themes in the directory
that do X" is never a valid argument. The Guidelines may have changed; we
reviewers may simply have screwed up and allowed something that was against
the guidelines. Whatever the case: current Themes under review are expected
to conform to the current Guidelines.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Peter Kakoma <kakomap at gmail.com> wrote:

> The issue is that there is no definitive guideline about
> {plugin-territory-stuff}. I believe the end-goal of this discussion is to
> draft one and share it with the rest of the world (otherwise we'll be
> discussing this again two months from now when a first-time reviewer asks
> the same question)
>
> And in as much as my theme is guilty of adding Analytics, I agree with
> you-the line should be drawn at non-presentational stuff (*cough* SEO,
> *cough*). Removing Analytics now, updating the theme.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> I don't agree that the Favicon guidelines are appropriate for extending
>> to all {plugin territory} functionality.
>>
>> Things that are marginally presentational (e.g. sharing links)? Using the
>> Favicon guidelines as a model is reasonable. But Google Analytics: no
>> reason to facilitate Themes adding this functionality. It's not in any way
>> whatsoever presentational. As far as I'm concerned, that's an absolute line
>> of demarcation. If it's not in any way presentational, it doesn't belong in
>> a Theme, opt-in/disabled-by-default or otherwise.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Peter Kakoma <kakomap at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Themes are recommended not to implement custom
>>>> {plugin-territory-stuff} functionality.
>>>> If implemented, {plugin-territory-stuff} functionality is required to
>>>> be opt-in, and disabled by default.
>>>> If implemented, {plugin-territory-stuff} functionality is required to
>>>> support user-defined {plugin-territory-stuff} images
>>>
>>>
>>> Those points are fairly well sorted except for the third which is really
>>> more relevant to the original ideas behind the use of favicons, but if you
>>> use the first two points as your benchmark then you should be (for the most
>>> part but not 100% guaranteed) fine with going forward.
>>>
>>>
>>> Edward Caissie
>>> aka Cais.
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> www.urbanlegendkampala.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130612/f28602a6/attachment.html>