[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

[Srikanth Koneru]

but i thought you said social buttons are fine :
"Things that are marginally presentational (e.g. sharing links)? Using the
Favicon guidelines as a model is reasonable."


On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130613/2638bab4/attachment-0001.html>