For each new project use Twitter Bootstrap 2 markup and conventions

[sheerun]

That includes HTML for layout, forms, buttons, flash messages, navigation and others.

Twitter bootstrap is the most recognizable framework, is easy to mock with, is supported by many Ruby and Javascript plugins. It's probable the only reasonable choice.

[teamon]

And then we will hack bootstrap, start to modify it and everything will be hacky override. I do not like that idea at all, let's see what @venticco, @maciejswiderek and @porada think about it.

[porada]

Oh, please no.

Let’s use Bootstrap for prototyping only (if really, really necessary).

[sheerun]

@teamon @porada I'm not talking about css but html markup... Twitter's markup is extremely elegant.

[porada]

It’s the advantage of writing OOCSS/SMACSS, not specifically Bootstrap’s.

---

BTW, Bootstrap isn’t Twitter’s anymore.

[sheerun]

@porada That are very vague terms. It's like saying it's cool to write MVC. Do you recommend any other HTML markup framework? I think Bootstrap2 is good to begin with.

[sheerun]

We really need HTML framework to reuse HTML components from project to project. It's waste of time to write everything from scratch every time. With common HTML can copy-paste much CSS code.

[porada]

With your thinking, all sites would have the same reusable design. A website has to have its unique look, and therefore unique HTML, suited for its specific needs.

As I mentioned, reusable stuff can be used for prototyping, but not for production. (Yes, some elements may repeat, but not one particular stylesheet.)

[sheerun]

Again. I'm not talking about CSS, but HTML. Not all the HTML, but basic stuff.

[sheerun]

What elements from Bootstrap 2 you find too specific to be used on any site?

[porada]

I'm not talking about CSS, but HTML.

HTML is (should be) tailored by CSS, not the opposite.

What elements from Bootstrap 2 you find too specific to be used on any site?

Everything but the scaffolding. Imagine monterail.com assembled from Bootstrap components. :)

[sheerun]

You missunderstood me. I'm not suggesting that monterail.com should be made from Bootstrap compontents (btw. components are of course used more often in applications, not simple websites). You should not be constrained in any way by the HTML markup. If you ever need to change HTML in order to do some fancy CSS effect, go ahead (just think twice if changing it is really necessary). There is no way of reusing such components anyway.

Please look at any Bootstrap's element from Scaffolding, Base CSS or Components section and tell me why its HTML should look differently in the base case. Why can't we use similar HTML and class names across our projects?

@maciejswiderek @venticco what do you think?

[porada]

Did you mean using consistent class names between projects? I’m cool with that.

[sheerun]

@porada Yes, class names and HTML in basic cases. For example not using <div class="crumbs"> for breadcrumbs instead of <ul class="breadcrumb"></ul>

[porada]

Yup, I always assume that Monterail’s front-end devs use proper semantics. :)

[sheerun]

I also think that recommended semantics in other cases could be documented in styleguide proposed in #34

[jandudulski]

@sheerun could you prepare the abstract of the rules?

[sheerun]

They are listed on Bootstrap 2 website :)

On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Jan Dudulski notifications@github.comwrote:

@sheerun https://github.com/sheerun could you prepare the abstract of the rules?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/monterail/rules/issues/33#issuecomment-11193581.