Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

twitter.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 163 posts

Re: Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

#61

Post by sunchild »

spung wrote: post #43

I've incorporated Bootstrap 1.4 to use its styling (fonts, buttons, etc) but I'd like to get into the responsive features of 2.0. How exactly does the grid layout work, how should I layout my content? Which columns should I use and how would they adapt to changes in device max width? Thanks in advance!

It's pretty much as easy as wrapping the content in .container, .row, and .spanN tags. The responsive part should take care of itself by collapsing horizontal elements into vertical arrangements, and adjusting widths to keep them within the viewport.

There are some edge cases for various components (such as the Bootstrap navbar) that require some special markup and Javascript to collapse intelligently.

Re: Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

#62

Post by rhizome »

jv22222 wrote: post #56

My only fear is that widespread use of these kind of pre-designed frameworks might create a homogenized web. I understand that you can re-skin but I'm thinking many folks will go with the pre-built look/feel. Even so, this is awesome for getting stuff out quickly. Great job.

That's fine. It just makes creativity that much more valuable.

Re: Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

#64

Post by sopooneo »

Yes, Bootstrap is great. Honestly, I love using it. But where are all the people that I used to see screeching about semantic markup? Because this takes things in exactly the opposite direction.

Re: Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

#65

Post by jonaslejon »

rolleiflex wrote: post #22

I wonder why they have removed sortable tables. Not a hard thing to re-add if you need it, but why the hassle? I used them a lot as a designer as it is one of the most appreciated things for my clients from the desktop-application world who expect it as a given and disappointed when it's not available.

Maybe add or use http://listjs.com/ ?

Re: Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

#67

Post by mrpollo »

sopooneo wrote: post #64

Yes, Bootstrap is great. Honestly, I love using it. But where are all the people that I used to see screeching about semantic markup? Because this takes things in exactly the opposite direction.

yeah, like using for icons http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#edef-I

Re: Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

#68

Post by oconnor0 »

mrpollo wrote: post #67
sopooneo wrote: post #64

Yes, Bootstrap is great. Honestly, I love using it. But where are all the people that I used to see screeching about semantic markup? Because this takes things in exactly the opposite direction.

yeah, like using for icons http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#edef-I

Thanks for pointing that out. That seems like an odd design decision.

Edit: I wonder what motivated it. "i" for images and no one uses it to italicize text anymore?

Re: Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

#69

Post by josephcooney »

schpet wrote: post #36

> With Bootstrap 2, we've gone fully responsive. This would imply a fluid grid, which it lacks. http://www.zeldman.com/2011/07/06/responsive-design-i-dont-t...

(from the linked site) I find the notion that a phrase as general as 'responsive web design' could be considered 'coined' in 2010, and could be considered to have such a narrow meaning (i.e. you can't be 'responsive' without a fluid grid). A search on the phrase from Jan 2000 until Jan 2009 returns more than 16 million results.

Re: Bootstrap 2.0, From Twitter

#70

Post by mrpollo »

oconnor0 wrote: post #68
mrpollo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, like using for icons http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/present/graphics.html#edef-I

Thanks for pointing that out. That seems like an odd design decision. Edit: I wonder what motivated it. "i" for images and no one uses it to italicize text anymore?

yeah my best guess is that "i" for "icon", it's a good use, from the w3c "their use is discouraged in favor of style sheets." so I guess it doesn't really hurt no one, but the purists, or am I wrong?
Post reply on HN