[theme-reviewers] Is it necessary to use Core Bundled Masonry?
Justin Tadlock
justin at justintadlock.com
Wed Sep 18 22:16:17 UTC 2013
From what I understand, the version of Masonry bundled with WordPress
is for some compatibility stuff in the admin. I could be wrong
though. If anyone more familiar with that could chime in, it'd be great.
Assuming the theme didn't touch the admin (shouldn't anyway) and checked
that Masonry wasn't loaded by a plugin on the front end (the theme would
need to gracefully degrade if so), I have no problem bending the
**guidelines** (not rules) on this particular issue.
This is just another example of not taking the case under full
consideration and applying black-and-white rules to all scenarios.
On 9/18/2013 4:27 PM, Emil Uzelac wrote:
> I have no problem with this Josh, nor I was aware that there's an
> issue with the bundled version.
>
> +1 from me to "bend" the rule till this is updated in the core itself :)
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com
> <mailto:jpollock412 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> This is a ridiculous requirement.
>
> So let's imagine a scenario where a reviewer noticed that my theme
> deregistered core-bundled Masonry 4 versions or so ago in order to
> use Masonry 3. That reviewer would have said "Josh you are
> required to use the version of Masonry that is bundled with
> WordPress." To which I would have said, "but you see, the version
> of Masonry in WordPress is very old. The very different new
> version, allows me to solve all of the weird formatting problems I
> was getting when using Masonry in my theme." And the reviewer
> would have reminded me that our guidelines do not have sensible
> flexibility built-in to allow for the rules to be bent a bit when
> it solves real world problems. Instead, I'd have been given the
> choice of removing a feature or allowing my theme to remain broken
> for an indefinite period of time.
>
> Wouldn't it have been better if the hypothetical reviewer had
> allowed this rule bending, in the name of making things work, that
> would have had little to no adverse consequences as long as I
> agreed to switch to core-bundled Masonry when it was updated to
> Masonry 3?
>
> See how that second scenario produces better themes, which I think
> is the point of the theme review guidelines to begin with.
>
> Of course, my theme works nicely with Masonry, because no one
> noticed that I acted sensibly instead instead of following the
> guidelines to the letter, which would have produced an inferior theme.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Rohit Tripathi <rohitink at live.com
> <mailto:rohitink at live.com>> wrote:
>
> Great. I am submitting a trac ticket with patch.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:10:37 -0500
> From: dane at danemorganmedia.com <mailto:dane at danemorganmedia.com>
>
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] Is it necessary to use Core
> Bundled Masonry?
>
> Chip, do you have a good resource for me to start learning how
> to go about doing that?
>
> Chip Bennett <mailto:chip at chipbennett.net>
> Wednesday, September 18, 2013 15:06
> You should submit a Trac ticket (with patch, if possible)
> to have the core-bundled version updated.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Towfiq I. <mailto:tislam100 at gmail.com>
> Wednesday, September 18, 2013 15:04
> +1 for the making this allowed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Towfiq I.
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Rohit Tripathi <mailto:rohitink at live.com>
> Wednesday, September 18, 2013 15:01
> Here is the latest
> version:http://masonry.desandro.com/masonry.pkgd.min.js
> and here is the one which wordpress uses:
> http://pastebin.com/HtbGdtdK
>
> These are two really different scripts.
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Rohit Tripathi <mailto:rohitink at live.com>
> Wednesday, September 18, 2013 14:58
> The core jquery-masonry(v2.1) is practically useless, it
> has 1/3rd the amount of code present in the version 3.1.2.
> I will be handicapped, if I am forced to use the MUCH
> older version, as I am not able to do what I want with it.
>
> It's a request to allow usage of the latest version, as
> both are really different.
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Emil Uzelac <mailto:emil at uzelac.me>
> Wednesday, September 18, 2013 14:54
>
> Hi,
>
> Yes it's requirement to use core bundled scripts.
>
> Emil
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <mailto: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/20130918/2864a8a5/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1200 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130918/2864a8a5/attachment-0004.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1121 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130918/2864a8a5/attachment-0005.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1616 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130918/2864a8a5/attachment-0006.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1409 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130918/2864a8a5/attachment-0007.jpe>
More information about the theme-reviewers
mailing list