[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

Thomas from ThemeZee contact at themezee.com
Wed Jun 12 19:45:56 UTC 2013 

Wow, thanks Chip for editing the Guidelines and adding these clarifications.

I guess there will be a lot discussions now what exactly should be allowed
and what not. Maybe this will lead to some adjustments of the guidelines,
too.

But we had most of these discussions already and it was talked about plugin
territory stuff over and over again. Now the results of these discussion
are written down, which makes all rules consistent and everyone can look
them up.

Really great improvement :)


2013/6/12 Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>

> Peter was right about you being a lawyer :)
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> That's why it says "content sharing", specifically. :)
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/a6a18fc8/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list