[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

Wed Jun 12 19:13:00 UTC 2013

Okay, will remove them from my themes.
This may have to be changed from "Content Sharing buttons/links" to
"Content Sharing buttons" since social icons linking to social network
profiles are okay....

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> "Presentational" means "presentation of user-generated content".
>
> The best approach is to integrate *support* for Plugins that would provide
> content-sharing buttons, facebook like buttons, twitter intent links, etc.
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Social buttons as in the buttons provided by twitter/facebook/SU etc...
>> https://twitter.com/about/resources/buttons
>> http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like-box/
>>
>> My point is these sharing buttons are presentational, how will a plugin
>> know my theme's design aesthetic? The data collected by these buttons can
>> be used by any theme or plugin with out any vendor lock in...
>> Theme author can place these buttons precisely according to the design
>> aesthetic, plugins will depend on some hook and quite often the result
>> murders the design aesthetic.
>>
>> Please reconsider....
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> Please clarify what you mean by "social buttons".
>>>
>>> Content-sharing buttons (i.e. like the "Share This" Plugin) aren't
>>> presentational.
>>>
>>> Icon links to social network profiles are marginally presentational, and
>>> are analogous to favicons.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/b5e639d7/attachment.html>