[theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.

[Emil Uzelac]

So hear is the thing. With the blessings of others, I am thinking that
Themes should not be "crucified" the way we're doing this now. As
I was previously expressing, not all things are the "plugin territory".

My personal methodology is, if nothing breaks, or interferes with the
core and it's useful to users, let it be, as simple as that.

Restricting and eliminating rather harmful stuff, will project very
negatively to Theme authors.

I don't want to step on anyone's toe here and this is what I believe
is right, or at least it should be :)

Emil


On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph) <
philip at frumph.net> wrote:

> i.e. don't even give it a second glance, that's a feature of the theme
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:35 PM
>
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.
>
> There's no question about it, as long as it passes the theme unit test with
> default settings it would pass right?
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Daniel
> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:31 PM
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.
>
> What about themes like my one where you can remove the header and
> footer because your using a bridge like wp-united? Where do those sort
> of things come into play?
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
> <philip at frumph.net> wrote:
>
>> These are features of a theme, the shortcodes and more are 'features' of
>> the
>> theme.
>>
>> If they use the theme and use those shortcodes, then that is the theme
>> that
>> is using it, to require shortcodes to be cross compatible and in a plugin
>> is
>> simply ridiculous.
>>
>> The end user, while picking a theme will choose a theme that has features
>> that they want.   When they choose another theme that doesn't have those
>> previous themes features they miss out, it's not a question of requiring a
>> compatibility.
>>
>> This also goes with themes that have specialty programming in the way of
>> custom post types and the like. - again the data is not lost, it's still
>> there, just switching to a different theme will not grant access to it.
>>
>> The age of feature rich themes and innovation should be promoted not
>> stifled.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Harish
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 10:24 PM
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.
>>
>>
>> Good suggestions by Philip (Frumph) however I have to disagree with:
>>
>> " the idea that a theme must adhere and be cross compatible with other
>> themes in features is a nuance that is unnecessary to worry about."
>>
>> Themes do not have to be cross compatible with other themes, but they
>> should
>> not be the cause of the end user losing data when changing their themes.
>>
>> 2 of the most common issues are shortcodes and custom meta boxes where the
>> key  has "_" in front to hide it from the custom meta fields section.
>>
>> If theme developers are worried of making things easier for the end user,
>> most of these things should not have been in the theme in the first place.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Harish
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: theme-reviewers [mailto:theme-reviewers-**
>> bounces at lists.wordpress.org <theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org>
>> ]
>> On Behalf Of Philip M. Hofer (Frumph)
>> Sent: Wed 26 June 13 10:41 AM
>> To: theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> Subject: [theme-reviewers] Formal Request for Change of Methodology.
>>
>> 1) Remove all requirements and recommendations, change it all to 'best
>> practices', do not remove anything in the codex just yet.
>>
>> 2) Theme review process.
>> * Theme reviewers tag a theme for review. / It already passed the upload
>> checker
>> * Check theme with the other plugin(s)[1] available for development, check
>> it for notices, warnings, fatals and deprecation messages, Pass/Fail
>> * Check theme with theme unit test.  Pass/Fail
>> * Review the tags, website links, theme name.  Pass/Fail
>>
>> It's done, it's reviewed, it's over, if it passed all of those, flag it as
>> passing review and live.
>>
>> 3) Anything else missing on the above list that is a MUST should be added
>> to
>> the list but only if it's a MUST, and can't go live no exception.
>>
>> [1] Make the plugins work for the theme review team; add common security
>> problems, etc.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~**~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> This is it, this is all that is needed.     Everything else is icing on
>> the
>> cake for best practices.
>>
>>
>> Themes are the 'meat and potatoes' of WordPress, the idea that a theme
>> must
>> adhere and be cross compatible with other themes in features is a nuance
>> that is unnecessary to worry about.   Plugins are made to enhance themes;
>> if a plugin doesn't work with a theme the community WILL contact the
>> author;
>>
>> they always do.   As long as the theme is up to date with core coding
>> which
>> all of the tools at our disposal make you aware of - of which even the
>> messages from core will also state things it is unnecessary to do anything
>> otherwise.
>>
>> // not sure about
>> Not sure what Nacin wrote in entirety on the Make site, but having the
>> themes that are live and pass the upload process and immediately go live
>> again would be a boon; that basically makes it like the theme developer
>> has
>> svn access, without having svn access.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>
> ______________________________**_________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
> ______________________________**_________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130626/9dd958c3/attachment.html>