<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Canonical, Core, Something Plugins</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins</link>
	<description>Where Every Drink Is On The House</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:56:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5204</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 05:14:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5204</guid>
		<description>As a plugin developer, I&#039;m a fan of keeping the core as lightweight as possible -- and having plugins for the nice-to-have features (e.g. Code Editor).

I&#039;m not a huge fan of the canonical plugins idea, at least the way it&#039;s been presented thus far. A bundled/canonical plugin would have tremendous outreach, but Carl is right -- providing support for a canonical plugin &lt;em&gt;could&lt;/em&gt; prove overwhelming for the plugin developers as well as the WP core team.

@Keith - Agreed. I think it would be of WP&#039;s best interest to steer clear of favoritism.

&lt;strong&gt;Improvements to the WP.org plugins page and &quot;Add New&quot; area (within WordPress itself) could make a world of difference.&lt;/strong&gt; They&#039;re now collecting &quot;Plugin Compatiblity&quot; crowdsourcing data, which could be combined with WP.org&#039;s metric shit-ton of other statistics data to determine which plugins to feature.

My recommendation would be for WP to re-vamp the plugins page to take all their statistics (average downloads/day, plugin age, last updated, rating, compatibility, tags) and use it to provide a more interactive/filterable experience.

An obvious example is to allow users to search for plugins tagged with X that are compatible with Y version of WordPress. Or, plugins rated &gt;= 75% with &gt;= 5 votes.

Also, cleaning up the tags system would make them more helpful. Maybe even going as far as only using tags for aspects of WordPress (e.g. &quot;Admin UI&quot;, &quot;Widgets&quot;, &quot;Image Management&quot;, &quot;Search&quot;, &quot;SEO&quot;, etc).

Finally, instead of just having a single &quot;Featured Plugins&quot; area, maybe having a tabbed area of high-impact categories (UI, SEO, Post Types, Forms, Images, Commenting, Roles), with several algorithm-picked plugins under each type. That&#039;ll give users a much wider view of the variety of WP plugins (no offense to PollDaddy, IntenseDebate, and the others).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a plugin developer, I&#8217;m a fan of keeping the core as lightweight as possible &#8212; and having plugins for the nice-to-have features (e.g. Code Editor).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not a huge fan of the canonical plugins idea, at least the way it&#8217;s been presented thus far. A bundled/canonical plugin would have tremendous outreach, but Carl is right &#8212; providing support for a canonical plugin <em>could</em> prove overwhelming for the plugin developers as well as the WP core team.</p>
<p>@Keith &#8211; Agreed. I think it would be of WP&#8217;s best interest to steer clear of favoritism.</p>
<p><strong>Improvements to the WP.org plugins page and &#8220;Add New&#8221; area (within WordPress itself) could make a world of difference.</strong> They&#8217;re now collecting &#8220;Plugin Compatiblity&#8221; crowdsourcing data, which could be combined with WP.org&#8217;s metric shit-ton of other statistics data to determine which plugins to feature.</p>
<p>My recommendation would be for WP to re-vamp the plugins page to take all their statistics (average downloads/day, plugin age, last updated, rating, compatibility, tags) and use it to provide a more interactive/filterable experience.</p>
<p>An obvious example is to allow users to search for plugins tagged with X that are compatible with Y version of WordPress. Or, plugins rated &gt;= 75% with &gt;= 5 votes.</p>
<p>Also, cleaning up the tags system would make them more helpful. Maybe even going as far as only using tags for aspects of WordPress (e.g. &#8220;Admin UI&#8221;, &#8220;Widgets&#8221;, &#8220;Image Management&#8221;, &#8220;Search&#8221;, &#8220;SEO&#8221;, etc).</p>
<p>Finally, instead of just having a single &#8220;Featured Plugins&#8221; area, maybe having a tabbed area of high-impact categories (UI, SEO, Post Types, Forms, Images, Commenting, Roles), with several algorithm-picked plugins under each type. That&#8217;ll give users a much wider view of the variety of WP plugins (no offense to PollDaddy, IntenseDebate, and the others).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carl Hancock</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5203</link>
		<dc:creator>Carl Hancock</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:07:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5203</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-5197&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Keith Casey&lt;/a&gt; - You bring up some of the same concerns I have and by giving these plugins some sort of special label such as &quot;Canonical&quot; or &quot;Core&quot; or whatever it maybe you are elevating them above the rest of the plugins in the community in the eyes of the average user.

Just because a plugin is canonical doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s necessarily going to be the best at what it does.  Sure that is the goal, but that doesn&#039;t mean it&#039;s going to happen. But unfortunately because a plugin has been anointed as canonical... they are going to view it as being the best.  Right or wrong.

Thats why I do not think labeling these plugins with some sort of special designation is a good idea.  Just give the plugin itself a name and release the damn thing.  

My other issue is support.  Who is going to support these canonical plugins?  Support is a big deal to the average user... and as someone who deals with support for a commercial plugin I shudder at the thought of supporting a plugin that may have an install base as big as a canonical plugin may have.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-5197" rel="nofollow">Keith Casey</a> &#8211; You bring up some of the same concerns I have and by giving these plugins some sort of special label such as &#8220;Canonical&#8221; or &#8220;Core&#8221; or whatever it maybe you are elevating them above the rest of the plugins in the community in the eyes of the average user.</p>
<p>Just because a plugin is canonical doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s necessarily going to be the best at what it does.  Sure that is the goal, but that doesn&#8217;t mean it&#8217;s going to happen. But unfortunately because a plugin has been anointed as canonical&#8230; they are going to view it as being the best.  Right or wrong.</p>
<p>Thats why I do not think labeling these plugins with some sort of special designation is a good idea.  Just give the plugin itself a name and release the damn thing.  </p>
<p>My other issue is support.  Who is going to support these canonical plugins?  Support is a big deal to the average user&#8230; and as someone who deals with support for a commercial plugin I shudder at the thought of supporting a plugin that may have an install base as big as a canonical plugin may have.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Robbins</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5198</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Robbins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:34:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5198</guid>
		<description>I think moving some functionality out of WP and into plugins would be a great way to streamline the software. 

But I do wonder if this could be an attempt to keep the commercial plugin market from developing further.  Just a thought.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think moving some functionality out of WP and into plugins would be a great way to streamline the software. </p>
<p>But I do wonder if this could be an attempt to keep the commercial plugin market from developing further.  Just a thought.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith Casey</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5197</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith Casey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 16:19:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5197</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve listened in on a number of these discussions and participated in one at WordCampNYC and my single biggest concern is the possibility of &quot;King Making&quot; here.  If the WordPress community &quot;blesses&quot; particular plugins without a clear reason why they choose A over B, it&#039;s going to be a source of strife and angst in the community.  Further, I think there are so many similar-but-not-quite-the-same Plugins because people have different Use Cases, priorities, and approaches.  And realistically, none of those are bad things.

I think two of the criteria in this process need to be Coding Standards and some sort of Security assessment.  If you know how closely a Plugin holds to the standards *and* that it has less security issues than others in the same space, the community will respond accordingly.  And it gives new Plugins a chance to compete.  And there&#039;s little human involvement and potential for angst.

In terms of Coding Standards, that can be entirely automated using CodeSniffer - http://urbangiraffe.com/articles/wordpress-codesniffer-standard/  Security is a bit more difficult but the concept of &quot;security fuzzing&quot; is well-established and there are some tools out there.

And besides, get this going and then you can go taunt other communities *cough*Drupal*cough* and ask why they&#039;re not doing the same...  ;)

My 0.02.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve listened in on a number of these discussions and participated in one at WordCampNYC and my single biggest concern is the possibility of &#8220;King Making&#8221; here.  If the WordPress community &#8220;blesses&#8221; particular plugins without a clear reason why they choose A over B, it&#8217;s going to be a source of strife and angst in the community.  Further, I think there are so many similar-but-not-quite-the-same Plugins because people have different Use Cases, priorities, and approaches.  And realistically, none of those are bad things.</p>
<p>I think two of the criteria in this process need to be Coding Standards and some sort of Security assessment.  If you know how closely a Plugin holds to the standards *and* that it has less security issues than others in the same space, the community will respond accordingly.  And it gives new Plugins a chance to compete.  And there&#8217;s little human involvement and potential for angst.</p>
<p>In terms of Coding Standards, that can be entirely automated using CodeSniffer &#8211; <a href="http://urbangiraffe.com/articles/wordpress-codesniffer-standard/" rel="nofollow">http://urbangiraffe.com/articles/wordpress-codesniffer-standard/</a>  Security is a bit more difficult but the concept of &#8220;security fuzzing&#8221; is well-established and there are some tools out there.</p>
<p>And besides, get this going and then you can go taunt other communities *cough*Drupal*cough* and ask why they&#8217;re not doing the same&#8230;  ;)</p>
<p>My 0.02.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Viper007Bond</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5188</link>
		<dc:creator>Viper007Bond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:07:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5188</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-5185&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Devin&lt;/a&gt; - I can&#039;t wait. It&#039;ll cut down on the pointless forks or authors not accepting patches, abandoned popular plugins (see Podpress), etc.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-5185" rel="nofollow">Devin</a> &#8211; I can&#8217;t wait. It&#8217;ll cut down on the pointless forks or authors not accepting patches, abandoned popular plugins (see Podpress), etc.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ozh</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5187</link>
		<dc:creator>Ozh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:07:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5187</guid>
		<description>Same comment about &quot;canonical&quot;. Doesn&#039;t mean a thing to me, except for a biblical aspect that has nothing to do with the stuff.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Same comment about &#8220;canonical&#8221;. Doesn&#8217;t mean a thing to me, except for a biblical aspect that has nothing to do with the stuff.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad Potter</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5186</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad Potter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:45:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5186</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-5184&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Jeffro&lt;/a&gt; - I thought it meant I was sticking my tongue out at you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-5184" rel="nofollow">Jeffro</a> &#8211; I thought it meant I was sticking my tongue out at you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Devin</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5185</link>
		<dc:creator>Devin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:39:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5185</guid>
		<description>This will still give plug-in authors the option of going on their own.  I assume canonical plug-ins could always be forked and adapted, and if the changes are useful/popular they will be brought back into the canonical &quot;core&quot; plug-in- much in the way that popular plug-ins now are brought into the Wordpress core once enough people ask for them or their utility becomes obvious (think automatic update).

I would be curious, though, to hear what @alexrabe, @Viper007Bond, or other actual plug-in developers think.

My vote was for &quot;core&quot;.  Every time I read &quot;canonical&quot; I think it&#039;s a bit confusing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This will still give plug-in authors the option of going on their own.  I assume canonical plug-ins could always be forked and adapted, and if the changes are useful/popular they will be brought back into the canonical &#8220;core&#8221; plug-in- much in the way that popular plug-ins now are brought into the WordPress core once enough people ask for them or their utility becomes obvious (think automatic update).</p>
<p>I would be curious, though, to hear what @alexrabe, @Viper007Bond, or other actual plug-in developers think.</p>
<p>My vote was for &#8220;core&#8221;.  Every time I read &#8220;canonical&#8221; I think it&#8217;s a bit confusing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeffro</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5184</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeffro</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5184</guid>
		<description>@&lt;a href=&quot;#comment-5183&quot; rel=&quot;reply&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Brad Potter&lt;/a&gt; - Good thing you added that smiley face to your comment...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@<a href="#comment-5183" rel="reply" rel="nofollow">Brad Potter</a> &#8211; Good thing you added that smiley face to your comment&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brad Potter</title>
		<link>http://www.wptavern.com/canonical-core-something-plugins#comment-5183</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad Potter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:27:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.wptavern.com/?p=2948#comment-5183</guid>
		<description>Why is Plugins capitalized while the others are not :P</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why is Plugins capitalized while the others are not :P</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

