[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

[Thomas from ThemeZee]

Allowing {plugin-territory-stuff} now (even if it's disabled by default)
would have the effect that theme developers are allowed to also include
shortcodes and custom post types in their themes.

After all in my opinion shortcodes and CPTs are more presentational than
sharing buttons, google analytics and SEO. I had planned to include a
simple image slideshow based on CPTs a few month ago and was turned down.

And it was a good thing. It took me some time but now I truly believe that
themes should not include any plugin territory features. Therefore I would
suggest to continue the {plugin-territory-stuff} is strictly forbidden
policy..

The only thing that really bugs me is that there is no guideline and no
consistent rules. The result is that their are hundred of themes which have
a lot of plugin stuff in their themes and other themes are rejected for the
exact same features.

I can live with both {plugin-territory-stuff} is allowed or not, but it
should be stated clearly in the guidelines and applied by all theme
reviewers.

Just my 2 cents
Thomas


2013/6/12 Peter Kakoma <kakomap at gmail.com>

> 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/d2484216/attachment.html>