[ekerazha]

jacmoe, on 18 April 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

Let the complete newbies use CodeIgniter.

So that those of us who appreciate that Yii is a non-bloated PHP Framework can enjoy it.
There are already addons for both of these 'competing' frameworks..

All I ask of Yii is this:

1) Semantic CSS - CSS3 with fallback for older browsers (see next point)
2) Full HTML5 support with Modernizr as fallback.

That's all.

Extensions were made to 'extend' Yii.
And that's the way I think it should be.

Feel free to create an Easy-Yii bundle.
I think it sounds like a great idea.

But why you'd want this come bundled with the framework is beyond me.

I started this discussion I think, with my request to replace Blueprint with something more modern.

We already have well-maintained extension for both Bootstrap and Foundation - so we have it: right now.
Should it become bundled with Yii?
No.

Yii is like a Sushi knife: elegant tool in the right hands.
It's not a Swiss Army Knife - and I hope that it never becomes one.

If it does, there's enough PHP frameworks out there to shake a stick at - muhaha.

Theoretically this is ok, but as I've already said, the point is that Yii needs to show something so, unless you want unstyled html lists instead of menus etc., we need a default style and Bootstrap 2 perfectly fits the purpose. You could always replace it with something else just like you can always replace jQuery (which is currently bundled) but having to show something we need a default style to be shown.

[Kynao]

It seems YAML has not been mentionned.
What do you think of ?

[jacmoe]

Kynao: I love you

I am totally sold on YAML - that thing blows both Bootstrap and Foundation out of the water - completely!

I like everything - especially the built-in fullpage layout - a true lifesaver!

And the buttons are nifty
And the form styles are great.

Thanks a lot!

[ekerazha]

Kynao, on 19 April 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

It seems YAML has not been mentionned.
What do you think of ?

I think that it has an ugly license http://www.yaml.de/license.html

[phpnode]

I think that is:

1. confusing because YAML is also the name of a JSON subset

2. not very good looking

3. doesn't have a suitable licence

4. has a horrible naming structure:

<div class="ym-grid linearize-level-1">
 This markup is disgusting
</div>

[Haensel]

For those interested: Here's a Foundation 3.0 sneak peak (icon fonts): http://www.zurb.com/...eek-icon-fonts. The race between Bootstrap and Foundation may not be over yet

[Kynao]

phpnode, on 20 April 2012 - 03:32 AM, said:

I think that is:

1. confusing because YAML is also the name of a JSON subset

2. not very good looking

3. doesn't have a suitable licence

4. has a horrible naming structure:

<div class="ym-grid linearize-level-1">
 This markup is disgusting
</div>

@jacmoe : You're welcome my dear
@phpnode : thanks you

Thanks to both of you, by your respective feedbacks, i can say i have both hot and cold
Is there someone in the middle ?

[jacmoe]

Yaml has been around since 2005, and it is more widely used than Bootstrap/Foundation.

License could have been different, but it's not all that different from MIT, because both MIT and the CC Attribution license requires that you mention it's use.
Notice that you can get away with mentioning it in the imprint.

The funny thing about using a CC license for software is that CC themselves discourage the use of their license for code. It is meant for art and other creative works...

I think the Yaml demo looks absolutely great, and it has a lot of features which both Bootstrap and Foundation doesn't have yet - and maybe never will.

I'll take a look at that Foundation demo, Haensel.

I am just slightly surprised that you guys seems to be more interested in eye-candy than what lies underneath.

Ideally, I would want something like Yaml, but powered by Sass/Compass - so I am still looking...

[wisp]

Bootstrap is only suitable if you want that specific look, if you want something else, it's a real pain to override things, their css is extremely complex and is very intrusive. Yii as a framework is designed to give developers an environment to create their own website or application in, not giving a ready made one and let you customize it. Therefore the css-framework should be a foundation where you could build your project on. That makes Boostrap unsuitable to be shipped as the default framework. It's great as an extension, but it shouldn't be the default.

[jacmoe]

Since Bootstrap was born to provide a consistent look across internal Twitter webapps, why can't the Yii community create something similar?
Named 'YiiStrap'..

The goal of this is to provide the user with a default look, to be unobtrusive and customizable.
Based on best practices: HTML5, CSS3 and semantic css.

ZURB Foundation is very close to being what we're looking for IMO, but as of now it's become a somewhat controversial choice.

[jacmoe]

I am a fan of Sass/Less based css.

I like ideas found in http://semantic.gs/ where you use declarative html and presentational css:

<header>...</header>
<article>...</article>
<aside>...</aside>

@column-width: 60;
@gutter-width: 20;
@columns: 12;

header { .column(12); }
article { .column(9); }
aside { .column(3); } 
@media (max-device-width: 960px) {
	article { .column(12); }
	aside { .column(12); } 
}

See how clean it is?

Twitter Bootstrap is actually generated from Less, so why can't Yii ship it's own version?

Using Sass and Less.

I don't use Semantic Grid myself - I prefer to generate my own using Susy for Sass.
But the main idea is that the html code is completely free from presentational classes, like col_3, etc.

It's also possible to plug into the html any css grid/framework/whatever.

And one last question:

Does this mean that users should go and download and install Sass/Compass and/or Less/Node.js ?

No, because Yii - like Bootstrap - will ship with a set of generated css files.
Power users can then modify the sass/less source files to generate a customized set of css files.

Or, even better: since the html is completely decoupled from the css, everyone can just plug their favorite css framework into it..

[ekerazha]

jacmoe, on 20 April 2012 - 03:26 PM, said:

Yaml has been around since 2005, and it is more widely used than Bootstrap/Foundation.

I never heard of the Yaml CSS Framework before. It could be older than Bootstrap and Foundation, but I doubt it is more widely used than Bootstrap, I could be wrong though.

Quote

License could have been different, but it's not all that different from MIT, because both MIT and the CC Attribution license requires that you mention it's use.
Notice that you can get away with mentioning it in the imprint.

The MIT License doesn't require

Condition: For the free use of the YAML framework, a backlink to the YAML homepage (http://www.yaml.de) in a suitable place (e.g.: footer of the website or in the imprint) is required.

There's a huge difference between an attribution in the source code and a backlink in the website.

Quote

The funny thing about using a CC license for software is that CC themselves discourage the use of their license for code. It is meant for art and other creative works...

Exactly...

[ekerazha]

wisp, on 20 April 2012 - 05:38 PM, said:

Bootstrap is only suitable if you want that specific look, if you want something else, it's a real pain to override things, their css is extremely complex and is very intrusive. Yii as a framework is designed to give developers an environment to create their own website or application in, not giving a ready made one and let you customize it. Therefore the css-framework should be a foundation where you could build your project on. That makes Boostrap unsuitable to be shipped as the default framework. It's great as an extension, but it shouldn't be the default.

Bootstrap 2 is very modular and easily customizable.

[jacmoe]

You sure are a very religious guy, Ekerazha.

So far you haven't really managed to come up with a single convincing argument, though.

MIT does indeed require attribution - look it up.

And just because you haven't heard of Yaml doesn't mean that it's not popular.
Google it.

[jacmoe]

The discussion reminds me of this:
http://highscalabili...ql-fanbois.html

I will not end up like Don Quixote fighting wind mills, so I am backing out of this discussion.

[ekerazha]

jacmoe, on 21 April 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

You sure are a very religious guy, Ekerazha.

I believe in the perfection and I am a crusader of the best things.

Quote

So far you haven't really managed to come up with a single convincing argument, though.

This is what I've already said about your arguments.

Quote

MIT does indeed require attribution - look it up.

Read it again

ekerazha, on 21 April 2012 - 04:15 AM, said:

The MIT License doesn't require

Condition: For the free use of the YAML framework, a backlink to the YAML homepage (http://www.yaml.de) in a suitable place (e.g.: footer of the website or in the imprint) is required.

There's a huge difference between an attribution in the source code and a backlink in the website.

Quote

And just because you haven't heard of Yaml doesn't mean that it's not popular.
Google it.

I tried to compare the Bootstrap hits and the Yaml hits on Google, but it's difficult because there's more than one project with the "Yaml" name.

jacmoe, on 21 April 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

The discussion reminds me of this:
http://highscalabili...ql-fanbois.html

I will not end up like Don Quixote fighting wind mills, so I am backing out of this discussion.

The point is that you think to be unerring. I.E. I explained the reason why the MIT attribution and that CC attribution are different and you feel the need to beat the dead horse writing things like "MIT does indeed require attribution - look it up.". You will never say things like "Ok, I got it.", you always have to appear smarter than others. Another example? phpnode explained his point of view and your reply was "Don't be ridiculous.". Excellent arguments. Grow up, please.

[jacmoe]

http://news.ycombina.../item?id=149558

[ekerazha]

Do you also have a reliable source or your arguments are a user opinion ("I would...") on news.ycombinator.com? Please...

I have a link for you http://www.opensource.org/licenses/MIT

[phpnode]

jacmoe - you are flat out wrong, it doesn't require attribution. It requires that the licence is left intact along with the source code. There is a vast difference. If I use an MIT or BSD library in my app, I don't need to credit them, I just need to make sure that if I distribute the source code for my app, I have to leave the original licence for the library intact. Huge difference between that and requiring a backlink. I can't believe you're even defending this, someone is wrong on the internet and that person is you.

[ekerazha]

Haensel, on 20 April 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

For those interested: Here's a Foundation 3.0 sneak peak (icon fonts): http://www.zurb.com/...eek-icon-fonts. The race between Bootstrap and Foundation may not be over yet

Nice.

Both Bootstrap 2 and Foundation 2 use Glyphicons Free (licensed under CC BY 3.0 and with the "backlink" request). I would use this "icon font" (MIT licensed) instead of Glyphicons Free (from the Bootstrap 2 download page you can easily deselect the icons "component").