[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

[Chip Bennett]

I've added some clarification to the Guidelines:
http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Presentation_vs_Functionality

I also removed the "draft" designation from the hook callback guidelines.


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Peter Kakoma <kakomap at gmail.com> wrote:

> It reads like it was written by a lawyer :-)
>
> Thanks Chip. That puts it  to rest for me. The bit about guidelines being
> a moving target is also on point.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130612/6a6e9474/attachment.html>