[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

Wed Jun 12 15:02:42 UTC 2013

http://make.wordpress.org/themes/2012/11/26/wordpress-3-5-guidelines-revisions/

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
philip at frumph.net> wrote:

>   @Thomas where are you getting the information that shortcodes are not
> allowed?
>
>
>
>  *From:* Thomas from ThemeZee <contact at themezee.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 12, 2013 7:39 AM
> *To:* theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> *Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review
>
>     Sorry Chip, I don't saw your last email until now. Stupid Gmail
> Import..
>
> I know the Presentation vs Functionality Guideline, but this guideline is
> really unclear worded for me. I only understand it know because I have
> followed the mailing list here for some time. Since then I know most things
> I can include in my themes and what not. I'm no native speaker so maybe
> it's just that ;)
>
> I agree that the guideline can not list every possible issue, but a few
> examples below the guidelines would be nice.
>
>  Post Content Shortcodes are not allowed.
> Custom Post Types not allowed (except for special use cases?)
> Functionality which is not presentational like Tracking Codes, SEO Options
> ...
>
> As you have said every human interprets the guidelines differently.
> Therefore they should be as clear as possible to make the theme reviews as
> consistent as possible.
>
> That is just my opinion, I don't want to offend anyone ;)
>
>
> 2013/6/12 Thomas from ThemeZee <contact at themezee.com>
>
>>  Ah of course shortcodes and CPTs should always be forbidden because
>> they cause really high lock-in effects, but there are also lock-in effects
>> (although they're smaller) of Google Analytics and SEO options.
>>
>> My email should not induce that these things should be allowed, I just
>> want a clear guideline :)
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Thomas
>>
>>
>> 2013/6/12 Thomas from ThemeZee <contact at themezee.com>
>>
>>>    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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130612/3cb7cd93/attachment.html>