[theme-reviewers] Bundling libraries and prefixing

[Konstantin Kovshenin]

Masonry v2 is a jQuery plugin, so it's jquery-masonry which has been
in core for over a year. Not sure why themes still bundle their own
script, maybe they're super old, haven't checked. Masonry v3's handle
is just masonry because it doesn't use jQuery anymore. jquery-masonry
became the shim that provides limited backwards compatibility with v2
and has a jQuery dependency.

So if themes used core's jquery-masonry before 3.9 they're probably
going to be fine. If they bundled their own jquery masonry and called
it masonry, there's a good chance they will break :)

What is the best way to reach out to the authors of the following
themes (rather than scraping their e-mail addresses and contact forms
by hand)?

http://pastebin.com/jaaRqjiS

Thanks!

On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> I would recommend working directly with the developers of the 20 Themes.
>
> This situation does help clarify what our guidelines should be regarding
> Theme-bundled, third-party scripts. I think the Guidelines supported this
> already, but: only *custom* scripts bundled with the Theme should use a
> theme-prefixed handle. A third-party script should use a non-prefixed
> handle.
>
> Is there a nomenclature standard for such scripts? e.g. Would Masonry's
> handle be 'masonry' or 'jquery-masonry', etc.?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Konstantin Kovshenin <kovshenin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> That's if both pieces of code try to load the script, yes, but core's
>> situation is a bit different.
>>
>> We'll end up loading (plain, non-jQuery) Masonry v3 when a theme used
>> that handle to load its own jQuery Masonry v2. If the theme uses a
>> prefixed themename-masonry handle it will keep working.
>>
>> Basically what I'm asking is for Otto to weigh in on
>> https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/27510 :)
>>
>> Maybe we can change core's handle for the sake of the 20 or so
>> affected themes, maybe we can notify the authors, or maybe we can just
>> fix it and let reviewers know going forward.
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 1:26 AM, Konstantin Kovshenin
>> > <kovshenin at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Here's a follow-up question.
>> >>
>> >> Given that a theme has used a non-prefixed generic name for a bundled
>> >> script, how could we ensure it doesn't break when core introduces the
>> >> same handle but with a different version? Masonry v3 in 3.9 for
>> >> example :)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > If two bits of code loaded the same script with two different names,
>> > then
>> > they'd both load, and that would most likely cause breakage too. So you
>> > can't win here.
>> >
>> > Best to choose the most obvious name based on the source of the script,
>> > so
>> > that hopefully both of them don't load and only one of them does. This
>> > may
>> > break, but it's less likely to break than loading two different versions
>> > of
>> > the same script is.
>> >
>> > -Otto
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>



-- 
Konstantin