The question posed in the first post is somewhat of an interesting dilemma as, one one hand you could have an excellent module which a lot of people could use whilst on the other, it may not have clear and concise Instructions as per the Rules for Contribution. Does that mean the module should not be included in the downloads? Obviously not as many modules are in this situation and have been included for downloading.

A good case in point regarding documentation is the Zen Cart Manual created by Goh Koon Hoek. Here we have someone who took it upon himself to create an almost 400 page manual to better help people understand and use Zen Cart itself. Is the Zen Cart dev team at fault for not creating one themselves even though there is "some" documentation provided with the script? Should the release of Zen Cart have waited until it, itself, met the Rules for Contribution? Who is to say?


My personal pet peeve is where a coder has provided a module or even a complete script and, even though the coding may be good and work as advertised, the HTML formatting is absolute garbage. One could also argue that coding without good layout should also be cause to have the coder's knuckles smartly rapped. Which, by the way, is one of the reason why I chose to focus on using Zen Cart; it has good coding and good HTML layout.

My point is that it all comes down to contributing. If someone is willing to take the time and put together a well thought out and executed module, perhaps they can be forgiven for not covering "all" that is technically required. Some modules do not even meet the "well thought out and executed" part and those are the ones I have to wonder about being included.