5 ms·

I know it isn't really a big thing, but this is really going to cramp my style: "Instead of .span and .offset, we're now using .col-span- and .col-offset-." I

I know it isn't really a big thing, but this is really going to cramp my style: "Instead of .span and .offset, we're now using .col-span- and .col-offset-." I can blaze through views using .row & .span in HAML, not so much now. I envision tons of personal errors in the short term as I transition projects to BS3. =========== Issue #2, does anyone know why Glyphicons won out over Font Awesome? ( http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/ http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/ ) Isn't Glyphicons only free in .png? I'm kinda confused about how the licensing works here: http://glyphicons.com/ http://glyphicons.com/ =========== Issue #3 [This is under the modal section...] This sounds like a bad idea, I personally don't have an ios3/4 device handy, but someone should be on that for something as big as bootstrap: "Test on iOS5. Not sure if we need to go older, but I want to check here to see how well fixed is supported."

jarcoal 13y ago
Wow that is a terrible change, I hope they back that out.
singold 13y ago
About Glyphicons From Bootstrap docs (http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/base-css.html#icons http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/base-css.html#icons): "Glyphicons Halflings are normally not available for free, but an arrangement between Bootstrap and the Glyphicons creators have made this possible at no cost to you as developers. As a thank you, we ask you to include an optional link back to Glyphicons whenever practical."
- walkon 13y ago
  Font Awesome's license makes it effectively free: http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/license/ http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/license/
  - ZeroGravitas 13y ago
    The Font Awesome licence is much better (permissive) than the Glyphicons one.
WatchDog 13y ago
Glyphicons provides a special license for bootstrap. I assume the publicity/business that bootstrap drives to glyphicons must be well worth giving away part of their paid product.
mgkimsal 13y ago
I didn't think fontawesome was around when bootstrap started, but I'd think now it'd be better to bundle fontawesome instead - more icons and they're scalable; that's been my experience of why FA>GI.
ezraroi 13y ago
I am using Bootstrap and FontAweosme for my website... there should not be any license problem by using them both.

jarcoal 13y ago

Wow that is a terrible change, I hope they back that out.

singold 13y ago

About Glyphicons From Bootstrap docs (http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/base-css.html#icons http://twitter.github.io/bootstrap/base-css.html#icons): "Glyphicons Halflings are normally not available for free, but an arrangement between Bootstrap and the Glyphicons creators have made this possible at no cost to you as developers. As a thank you, we ask you to include an optional link back to Glyphicons whenever practical."

walkon 13y ago
Font Awesome's license makes it effectively free: http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/license/ http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/license/
- ZeroGravitas 13y ago
  The Font Awesome licence is much better (permissive) than the Glyphicons one.

WatchDog 13y ago

Glyphicons provides a special license for bootstrap. I assume the publicity/business that bootstrap drives to glyphicons must be well worth giving away part of their paid product.

mgkimsal 13y ago

I didn't think fontawesome was around when bootstrap started, but I'd think now it'd be better to bundle fontawesome instead - more icons and they're scalable; that's been my experience of why FA>GI.

ezraroi 13y ago

I am using Bootstrap and FontAweosme for my website... there should not be any license problem by using them both.