81–90 of 91 posts
Best description of the messy state of HTML: hacking a flowing document markup language to implement GUI. Why couldn't we just get all the nice XAML/WPF containers in HTML5? Instead we get one more way of delivering streaming video. Most developers have to deal with layouts - let's focus on fixing that instead.
The only HTML what is there is the "class" attribute. The rest is CSS.
As neat as the Bootstrap grid is, the day that we have broad browser support for the CSS Grid spec cannot come soon enough.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I really prefer Bootstraps grid over something like Bourboun's Neat grid system[0] where I have to pollute my CSS with include statements. What about creating silent classes for the column sizes you use and `@extend`ing those classes? %three-columns { @include span-columns(3); } .sidebar { @extend %three-columns; } .menu { @extend %three-columns; background-color: #facade; }
This is a good idea and one I have done a bit-- IMO, it is the best of both worlds, though I hadn't thought of using a silent class (did not know there were silent classes, in fact). Personally, if I am working quickly, I like having what amounts to a grid api exposed to my html and use it a lot, but I agree that it is better if it doesn't have to be baked into the markup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Min is an extremely small CSS framework (995 bytes) that has compatibility with Bootstrap but unlike Bootstrap isn't prescriptive in how you do things. It's easy to port sites to Min, and when you do the loading times will shock you. https://github.com/owenversteeg/min (Disclosure: I'm the author)
Min looks like a nice attempt at a lightweight framework, but it is so minimal that I am not sure I could ever find a use case for it. One could easily start with something like normalize and get something up and running just as quickly as implementing Min. I like Bootstrap because I can rapidly lay out an entire application interface in minutes. From there, I can digg into the LESS to customize components and remove…
Try replicating Min's navbar quickly (the v2.0 one) and you will end up with tons of compatibility problems, strange bugs, and you'll give up quickly. There's a reason there are only five CSS frameworks (Bootstrap, Foundation, uikit, Ionic, Min) that actually have a working navbar. That's out of about 100 CSS frameworks total. All of those five frameworks, except Min, have a company, thousands of stars, and tons of contributors behind them.
I don't count Gumby as its navbar has some weird bugs, plus it uses display: table. I don't count Cascade and Ink as neither work consistently on Android.
For a preview of Min 2.0, try http://pasteht.ml/Rg0B0
Best description of the messy state of HTML: hacking a flowing document markup language to implement GUI. Why couldn't we just get all the nice XAML/WPF containers in HTML5? Instead we get one more way of delivering streaming video. Most developers have to deal with layouts - let's focus on fixing that instead.
Kids these days, no idea how rough we had it back when IE had 90% marketshare and didn't update for decades on end. You think HTML5 is just about streaming video? The standards are out there and they are improving rapidly, look into flexbox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kids these days, no idea how rough we had it back when IE had 90% marketshare and didn't update for decades on end. You think HTML5 is just about streaming video? The standards are out there and they are improving rapidly, look into flexbox.
Flexbox is not ready for use in projects that need to work with the browsers people use today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Flexbox is not ready for use in projects that need to work with the browsers people use today.
First of all, I'll repeat "kids these days" get-off-my-lawn speech because adoption is 100x faster than it was 10 years ago. Second of all, the point is that the standards are addressing these issues which the original commenter suggested they were not doing. Ignoring what standards bodies are actually doing before suggesting they're not doing anything and proposing some random lateral move that one happens to be fam…
All I'm hearing from you is "the gods will help us" when it would be better if W3C were smart enough to specify a sane bytecode and then let innovation run its course on top of that, instead of trying to predict our needs (which they've shown time and again they're bad at).
Had to stop reading after you literally used the phrase 'this one weird trick'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First of all, I'll repeat "kids these days" get-off-my-lawn speech because adoption is 100x faster than it was 10 years ago. Second of all, the point is that the standards are addressing these issues which the original commenter suggested they were not doing. Ignoring what standards bodies are actually doing before suggesting they're not doing anything and proposing some random lateral move that one happens to be fam…
We've seen what W3C has put out so far (XML, XSLT, XHTML...) and they do seem out of touch with the needs of developers. All I'm hearing from you is "the gods will help us" when it would be better if W3C were smart enough to specify a sane bytecode and then let innovation run its course on top of that, instead of trying to predict our needs (which they've shown time and again they're bad at).