[theme-reviewers] Custom Post Metas in the Theme

[Chip Bennett]

Content generation is currently Plugin territory. Thus, custom post meta
used to generate content remain Plugin territory.

The opportunity for custom-designed Themes has never changed, regardless of
criticality of the Theme Unit Tests. Developers have always been and remain
welcome to ask for exceptions for special use-case Themes.


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Zulfikar Nore <zulfikarnore at live.com>wrote:

> Are we to start saying that these are now also plugin territory?
>
> Having moved from TUT being required and opening up the opportunity for
> custom designed themes wouldn't making such a restrictive move on custom
> metas be counter productive?
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 15:16:56 +0200
> From: eminozlem at gmail.com
>
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Custom Post Metas in the Theme
>
> Definitely agree with that one.
>
>
> 2013/11/22 Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>
> That could certainly be added for register_post_type() and
> register_taxonomy(), but add_meta_box() isn't inherently improper; it all
> depends on its use.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Towfiq I. <tislam100 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> when we submit a theme through the uploader. The uploader detects and
> returns an error when there is a important tag missing. Isn't it possible
> to make the uploader extend its functionality and check whether the
> uploaded theme has custom post type registered with register_post_type and
> if it does, the uploader shows an error and does not continue with the
> submission process.
>
> just my 2 bits.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
> In this specific instance, I wonder if this isn't a legacy of the
> in-core-then-removed-in-beta Post Formats UI post-meta handling of post
> format-specific data? If that's the case, I have less of a concern with the
> use of custom post meta here - but I'd like to get some clarification from
> the core devs to know, when the feature is addressed again in the future,
> if the same post-meta implementation will be used.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:38 AM, Rohit Tripathi <rohitink at live.com> wrote:
>
> Theme specific design is acceptable. But Enterting MP3 Urls for audio
> format, and Video Embed Code for Video Formats is not acceptable. This is
> what is done in the themes i mentioned.
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 10:37:19 +0100
> From: grapplerulrich at gmail.com
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Custom Post Metas in the Theme
>
>
> What is wrong with using meta boxes? I do realise that in some cases you
> would loose data but there are other cases where it can be used for theme
> specific design.
>
> I suppose these cases would need to be an exception.
> On 22 Nov 2013 10:03, "Konstantin Kovshenin" <kovshenin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I think we should be looking for add_meta_box in Theme-Check and
> register_post_type for that matter.
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Rohit Tripathi <rohitink at live.com>wrote:
>
> I recently approved a theme: Anew. But, later on the ticket was opened,
> and it was pointed out the theme is heavily dependant on Custom Post Metas
> for Implementation of Post Formats. I Obviously understand, that why its
> unacceptable. But, i didn't look in the Add New Post section of the theme.
> So, I clearly missed it.
>
> Another Theme from the Same Author, which is currently a Featured Theme:
> http://wordpress.org/themes/hueman/ also depends a lot on Custom Post
> Meta for implemention Post Formats, violating the WPORG's Functionality
> Guidelines. Those issues need to be resolved, as users who switch away from
> the theme would loose significant amount of data.
>
> I am just writing this up here, as we reviewers should start looking
> carefully in the "Add New Post" areas, as we generally do not look there.
>
> :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
>
>
> --
> Konstantin
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> --
> Towfiq I.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131122/0ebd2243/attachment.html>