Zurb Foundation

Not a bug per se but a query.

Has there been a firm decision to go with Zurb Foundation?
If so, is this already in place in the code on GitHub?
Also, if so, will it be F6?

Thanks

Dayo:

Not a bug per se but a query.

Has there been a firm decision to go with Zurb Foundation?
If so, is this already in place in the code on GitHub?
Also, if so, will it be F6?

Thanks
In reference to the enabled-by-default template that is being prepared for v160, the answers are:
Yes
No
Yes

Is there somewhere where the choice of this is discussed that users can look at?

I couldn't find anything on Github from a first skim but assume there would have been a consideration of Bootstrap and curious to see what swayed the team over what I'd have expected to be strong pushing of BS3.

I have recently been getting into F6 and it seems basically equivalent to BS3 although BS3 has a lot of traction in place and a lot of existing themes for ZC. Quite a few teething problems with F6 as well (although the latest F6.1.1 seems to have cleared quite a few)

Only other thing is that F6 has JQuery v2.x built in if downloaded from their CDN which wouldn't support <= IE8.
Could be built with v1.x instead I suppose, which might be the choice for ZC to maintain the preference for legacy support ... witness PHP 5.2.9 support ;-)

Anyway, just curious and want to firm up on background issues as I am sure a detailed weighing between the F6 and BS3 must have been done ... assuming there isn't a licensing issue.

After getting up to speed, can then weigh up some next steps.

Thanks for the indulgence.

Dayo:

I am sure a detailed weighing between the F6 and BS3 must have been done ... assuming there isn't a licensing issue.
It started out as a licensing issue (in BS2 era), coupled with the fact that Foundation was a better product than BS2 at the time.

To dump Foundation and switch to BS3 now is tough given the amount of time invested in building the template markup with Foundation. Granted, the work done so far is in F5 and needs migration to F6 ... sometime after ZC v155 is released.

Cool. Thanks.

Am I right in concluding from the code on Github that F5 has so far only been applied to the "Install" and "Admin" sections?

Dayo:

Cool. Thanks.

Am I right in concluding from the code on Github that F5 has so far only been applied to the "Install" and "Admin" sections?
Yes. The F5 store-template hasn't been put up on github yet.

Dayo:

Is there somewhere where the choice of this is discussed that users can look at?

I couldn't find anything on Github from a first skim but assume there would have been a consideration of Bootstrap and curious to see what swayed the team over what I'd have expected to be strong pushing of BS3.

I have recently been getting into F6 and it seems basically equivalent to BS3 although BS3 has a lot of traction in place and a lot of existing themes for ZC. Quite a few teething problems with F6 as well (although the latest F6.1.1 seems to have cleared quite a few)

Only other thing is that F6 has JQuery v2.x built in if downloaded from their CDN which wouldn't support <= IE8.
Could be built with v1.x instead I suppose, which might be the choice for ZC to maintain the preference for legacy support ... witness PHP 5.2.9 support ;-)

Anyway, just curious and want to firm up on background issues as I am sure a detailed weighing between the F6 and BS3 must have been done ... assuming there isn't a licensing issue.

After getting up to speed, can then weigh up some next steps.

Thanks for the indulgence.

DrByte:

It started out as a licensing issue (in BS2 era), coupled with the fact that Foundation was a better product than BS2 at the time.

To dump Foundation and switch to BS3 now is tough given the amount of time invested in building the template markup with Foundation. Granted, the work done so far is in F5 and needs migration to F6 ... sometime after ZC v155 is released.

In the last couple weeks we've been taking a harder look at Bootstrap, and have accepted a PR for v155 Admin which implements Bootstrap to help make the v15x admin more mobile/tablet friendly ... at least as far as menu nav and home page go.
We're looking seriously at converting to Bootstrap for the v160 admin too.

Just wanted to give you a heads-up since if we do make that leap then it contradicts what I posted in my reply to you last month. :D

Thanks for the feedback.
Saw your other post requesting feedback. I'll post some thoughts there