I’ve seen WP themes doing the same.
Am i dreaming or did i just read they now support OAuth
But, has any open letter made to Envato ever had any effect?
Wouldn’t it be easier for you devs to just provide us with a set of predefined css classes that we can use within the item description? Take as an example the layout of the features list into the description of my most recent WP theme. That’s done with html table. Can’t you just provide the same layout but with predefined css classes for divs?
What happens when that same reviewer is sick or on holiday? Would you rather wait or have someone else take a look at it?
The policy is something like this “certain authors can do that – most can’t”. I’ve had a theme soft rejected a year ago for this same reason. Another theme in the same category, same niche as my theme is however allowed to do so. Go figure… Oh, don’t even bother contacting Envato, they’ll reply with “we’ll look in that”. Yup, it’s been a year now, those logos are still there
For UK users, read the last paragraph here. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/vat-supplying-digital-services-to-private-consumers/vat-businesses-supplying-digital-services-to-private-consumers
Digital portals, platforms, gateways and marketplaces
If you supply e-services to consumers through an internet portal, gateway or marketplace, you need to determine whether you are making the supply to the consumer or to the platform operator. If the platform operator identifies you as the seller but sets the general terms and conditions, or authorises payment, or handles delivery/download of the digital service, the platform is considered to be supplying the consumer. They are therefore responsible for accounting for the VAT payment that is charged to the consumer.
If you check all the themes and all the plugins sold throughout the Envato network, you will see that none of them are marked as “WordPress 4.1” compatible. Why? Because authors can’t add whatever they want, it is Envato that has to add the option and make it selectable, so even if they are compatible, we can’t mark it. This is what authors can select http://cl.ly/Z3GK as you can see the option isn’t there yet.