11 ms·

Bootstrap 3 released

469 points by trumbitta2 13y ago

manishsharan 13y ago
"Yo Bootstrap, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Foundation has one of the best frameworks of all time. One of the best frameworks of all time!" ;-)
- Fuzzwah 13y ago
  Nice opinion. You could have done me a favor and actually offered it in a more helpful way rather than referencing a quote from an idiot.... If anyone else is interested in checking out the foundation framework, here's the link to save you a google: http://foundation.zurb.com/ http://foundation.zurb.com/
- sergiotapia 13y ago
  I found myself backing out of using Foundation after downloading their latest version and trying to use a couple of their javascript components. Lots of bugs and generally fugly workarounds needed for the most basic things. I just removed it, and went back to Bootstrap.
  - ajselvig 13y ago
    I was also quite surprised that the javascript components seemed to take a step backwards in design and documentation from Foundation 3 to 4. Not sure why that is.
  - driverdan 13y ago
    Except Bootstrap 2.x's JS was terribly basic and didn't play well with single page apps. I haven't tried v3 yet so I don't know if it has improved.
    - sergiotapia 13y ago
      I wouldn't know about that; I've never built a single page app.
- baby 13y ago
  it used to be for sure, but with the box-sizing and the new grid system ? I don't really know anymore. I like Foundation for the forms and the grid syntax but bootstrap has a better default theme and has font awesome for so many icons.
  - kibibu 13y ago
    Font Awesome works just fine with Foundation.
    - baby 13y ago
      I've actually never thought about using it on its own since they're advertising it for Bootstrap only.
ibejoeb 13y ago
No submenus is kind of a bummer for applications. Sometimes I work on traditional stuff with an audience that expects this kind of navigation. I still really appreciate it, though. If it turns out I really need them, I'd rather start with Bootstrap than have to start from scratch.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
mmgutz 13y ago
Love the vids!
frank_boyd 13y ago
Awesome! Thanks to all contributors for the hard work!
joeblau 13y ago
Glad to see that Mark put the theme information is right on top :). Hopefully this will allay criticism from the "why is it flat" developers.
benaiah 13y ago
Looks quite nice - I really like the new theme, as it allows you to go for a gradient look but appears much less intrusive than Bootstrap 2's theme, in addition to being optional. Better documentation is also a huge plus.
Kiro 13y ago
Opening the mobile menu still lags a lot on my phone (Galaxy S3, stock browser). Why don't they use CSS animations for it instead? I was really hoping it would have been fixed in v3. Love the rest though.
- markdotto 13y ago
  We do.
- skeletonjelly 13y ago
  No issues here both on stock browser and Chrome Beta (Nexus 4). Do you mean the initial delay or rendering jitter?
  - Kiro 13y ago
    Rendering jitter.
bluetidepro 13y ago
> "With v3, we've gone flat. Don't call it a trend—it's all about customization, folks." I hope everyone catches that part of the post. It's very important, I think, based on the previous HN thread comments. I've been quite surprised at how many people are in an uproar about v3 being flat. People have been saying things like "it's a dumb trend", "horrible UX", "so ugly", etc. For a skeleton starter template like this, flat is good. Having the design flat encourages you to build on it or theme it to your OWN style so all of the sites using Bootstrap don't end up looking the same (like they have in past versions). It was also annoying in past versions when you had to declare no gradients, or reverse engineer things to lose the "default theme". Making it flat now allows you to build up, where past versions made you go backwards first, then build the theme the way you wanted. I hope more people realize that rational now they have specifically called it out. With that said, well done everyone that helped on the project! Great work! :)
- colmvp 13y ago
  A dumb 'trend' that's been around for decades. And agreed on your points. I'm looking forward to no longer having to override superfluous elements for the sake of customization.
- tsurantino 13y ago
  And for people who are still concerned (and even though this is mentioned directly in the post - some people won't necessarily read it). There is a theme provided, which I personally think improves on Bootstrap 2's version. http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/ http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/
  - kipple 13y ago
    The subtle color enhancements are nice (nothing like lowering contrast to make things look classier) but the button hovers appear broken.. that was an important bit of sparkle in twbs2 I hope 'twas just an oversight.
    - nobodysfool 13y ago
karsonenns 13y ago
Now I'm waiting on a SCSS port of it.
- mbell 13y ago
  I've been using this port without issue: https://github.com/jlong/sass-twitter-bootstrap/tree/3.0.0-wip https://github.com/jlong/sass-twitter-bootstrap/tree/3.0.0-w...
- movingahead 13y ago
  If you are looking for SASS and Rails, this port works great. https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass
  - markdotto 13y ago
    Yup, and we'll be working with these folks make this more official shortly. Stay tuned!
    - Flenser 13y ago
      That's great, there are a couple of sass ports for 2 and it was time consuming evaluating them so an officially blessed port would be great. For those of us integrating it with web app where we use semantic class names that we want to map to template styles, it would help if there were sass versions that create no concrete styles, just mixins and placeholder styles, so that we can extend our classes with bootstrap ones without inheriting styles on elements where we don't want the bootstrap style. e.g. I wanted the .nav-tabs style but already had my own .nav styling. Do you have any plans to make it possible to extend from bootstrap in this way?
  - taternuts 13y ago
    I might try this when I get home - I'm new to Ruby/RoR and I had a hell of a time getting the twitter-bootstrap-rails gem and it's dependencies installed on my windows machine and just went with Foundation.
halisaurus 13y ago
Well I'm glad I finished a customization of the v2 carousel last night. Will this thing break if I update? I'm betting yes.
AtTheLast 13y ago
Nice work bootstrap team! I really like how mobile friendly this version of bootstrap is!
jimaek 13y ago
Get it from a fast CDN http://www.jsdelivr.com/#!bootstrap http://www.jsdelivr.com/#!bootstrap
- clone1018 13y ago
  I prefer http://www.bootstrapcdn.com/ http://www.bootstrapcdn.com/
gavinballard 13y ago
I've been working with the release candidates for a while for my Shopify-based Bootstrap theme (http://bootstrapforshopify.com/ http://bootstrapforshopify.com/), and while it's been a bit of a tough ride sometimes (with pretty significant changes from release to release), I'm really impressed with what v3 brings to the table. Hopefully, the way the new styles are laid out will encourage more people to treat Bootstrap as a starting point rather than the end game for layout and styling (although it's a pretty good starting point in of itself). Edit: And, of course, massive thanks to Mark and Jacob (plus the ever-increasing community) for all of the work they've put in over the last two years :).
- markdotto 13y ago
  Yeah, sorry about those changes in the RCs. Really we used the wrong label and are sorry about that. All in all though, everything with those pre-releases worked out really well. Just a naming thing :). And thank you! <3
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - gavinballard 13y ago
    Apologies not necessary :).
    - borton 13y ago
      I appreciate the apology. I updated a site on the assumption that RC1 was a release candidate and not a work in progress. Now I need to update the site again. Ugh.
      - random42 13y ago
        Release candidates are expected to have bugs! I generally prefer using Major.minor.1 or Major.minor.2 of a new version (as many more bugs get fixed in those versions, after the stable version is used in production environment) or the last major version with all bug fixes.
baby 13y ago
Honestly this is the biggest point in Bootstrap 3 : > box-sizing: border-box I never understood why they didn't use it.
- gavinballard 13y ago
  IE 6-7 support?
  - markdotto 13y ago
    v2.x supported IE7, so yeah. Since we dropped that we were able to make use of it. Edit for typo
  - baby 13y ago
    I feel like most people using bootstrap don't really care about supporting IE 6-7. If you're really serious about supporting these browser there are two main reasons : - you want people from the companies who are forcing them to use IE, to be able to view the website as intended (and I'm sure they can understand that it doesn't look as good as on the latest version of Firefox) - you want people in China to have the best experience on your website. Then I believe you should look at other solutions.
    - markdotto 13y ago
      Sorry, my typo made this more confusing. We never supported IE6. IE7 was supported through 2.3.2. With v3, we dropped IE7 and now support IE8+.
      - Digit-Al 13y ago
        Really? I have had a look at bootswatch.com using IE8 and a lot of the stuff (certainly columns, drop-dows, and navbars) doesn't work at all. I just get javascript errors. I would contend that if you want something that works in IE8 then avoid this like the plague. Unless someone can tell me differently.
phillmv 13y ago
You can't actually see all the left-menu items on http://getbootstrap.com/components/ http://getbootstrap.com/components/ on a 13inch screen.
- STRML 13y ago
  I can't see all of them on a 1080p screen at 125% zoom, either.
  - ZoF 13y ago
    If you scroll to the bottom of the page the sidebar will eventually scroll down and show them. Still an error though, and the irony, given the context, makes it a bit comical.
  - SiVal 13y ago
    I can't see them all, even at 80% zoom, on a rMBP using Firefox with three rows of browser tabs. There are too many ways for this component to fail.
- walden42 13y ago
  Same here, 15".
- adamzegelin 13y ago
  Which browser? Works fine for me in Safari 6 at any zoom level.
  - phillmv 13y ago
    Chrome, 10.6, 1280x800.
    - jjcm 13y ago
      It probably wasn't tested with this old of a version of chrome/webkit. Works fine for me (I'm on Chrome 28.0) at that resolution. Assuming the browser version is the issue, I don't really see it as being a problem that bootstrap needs to address. Versions of chrome older than 22 account for 1.3% of the browser market share, and since bootstrap has dropped support for IE7 (0.7% MS) and FF3.6, it isn't surprising that they aren't targeting this. [1] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_chrome.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_chrome.asp
davidw 13y ago
Here's a question: what's the difference between this icon font, and font awesome, which for a time looked to be the 'go to' way of doing icons? I have no horse in that race, and they both look good to me.
- manojlds 13y ago
  FontAwesome is free and open source. And has more number of icons than what you will get with this Bootstrap only free version of glyphicons.
- stephen_g 13y ago
  You can use whichever one you like better... I'm using Font Awesome on one of my Bootstrap 3 based sites because it has more icons.
- highace 13y ago
  I just tried to swap in the new font-based glyphicon icons over the top of the old image based ones. First of all it's not a clean swap, because the class name structure has changed. Secondly, the font glyphs seem to have totally random positioning, so depending on how you use them you'll need to tweak the css for each one (or certainly groups of them) so they align properly with the text/button/whatever. I reverted, and dropped in Font Awesome. It was as simple as changing one line of css if you use the CDN, done. No tweaking required, and there's load more to choose from.
  - kipple 13y ago
    I also have found Font Awesome to be an easy and comprehensive solution (mmmm that huge icon selection, dang!). I honestly don't understand, why hasn't FA been folded into Bootstrap? Is it some licensing thing?
Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago
I'm glad they decided to keep glyphicons properly integrated.
spitfire 13y ago
Odd error on Safari 6.0.5 here. Where you should have three column layouts in the example page you get a single column list type layout. (Not a designer.) I've disabled both adblock and clicktoflash plugins.
zjgreen 13y ago
wasn't the easiest upgrade from 2 to 3 on one site of mine...
- alien3d 13y ago
  yup me to.. they changed the css a lot.. have to check one by one.. :(.. But output outsome. Rc1 ->rc2 -> 3.0.. my menu 3 drill down work again.Rc2 not work.
philip1209 13y ago
Bootswatch is in the process of updating its themes to Bootstrap 3 too: http://bootswatch.com/ http://bootswatch.com/
- johnward 13y ago
  I've never heard of bootswatch. I could see many people using this. One thing bothers me on your page though. The header text is fixed with no background so it ends up jumbled with the other text: http://cl.ly/image/3D133Y1E1V2P http://cl.ly/image/3D133Y1E1V2P fyi I'm using chrome28 on osx 10.8.4
peferron 13y ago
FWIW, migrating from a RC downloaded 2 days ago to this final release broke some stuff, most notably related to glyphicons CSS - so if you plan on upgrading, just be aware that it might not be seamless.
- joshfinnie 13y ago
  I have found that `btn-large` changed to `btn-lg` during the release from RC to today. So definitely take a look at this for larger projects.
zerolinesofcode 13y ago
Checkout roostrap too, one of the first Java web frameworks to support the new Bootstrap 3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6241294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6241294
the_cat_kittles 13y ago
odd bug- i just switched from rc 2 to the official release- now the page shifts slightly left when modals open, and back when they close. What is going on?
aerolite 13y ago
Do you have a list of the differences between RC2 and this?
steveax 13y ago
I'm just glad they kept table.table and label.label The department of redundancy department can sleep peacefully tonight.
scotty79 13y ago
> Everything in Bootstrap gets box-sizing: border-box Why w3c didn't make it default is beyond me.
weavie 13y ago
Awesome. Does this mean no more breaking changes for vn 3? It's been a mad game of catch up so far, every time I update I have to spend some time going through and updating the html to use slightly changed class names.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pacomerh 13y ago
On the grids part, basically added what foundation already had
bigbassroller 13y ago
I'd like to see a collapse menu come from the left or right incorporated into Bootstrap. Like the one at http://purecss.io/ http://purecss.io/
LinaLauneBaer 13y ago
Edit: Oh. I have just found out by another HN post that I did not understand the new grid system... Here is a link that explains it very well: http://www.helloerik.com/bootstrap-3-grid-introduction http://www.helloerik.com/bootstrap-3-grid-introduction I have used the release candidates for my own personal website and it has been a pretty good experience. However I liked the result I got with Bootstrap 2 more. To say it upfront: I am not a web developer. I am doing something completely different professionally. But maybe that makes my experience with Bootstrap kinda interesting… :) I had the main problem with the mobile first grid system. It changed quite a lot when compared to Bootstrap 2. I made a product page for my new app and I wanted to show thumbnails. When using the built in thumbnail class wierd things happen when you resize the window: The actual size of the thumbnail changes and it gets distorted as a result. Also the new grid system has the effect - at least in my case - that when resizing the window, the overall width of the columns that contain my text expand even though I made the window smaller. And then when I make the window even smaller the columns containing my text are becoming less wide. I think this is because of the fluid layout. Personally I do not like fluid websites at all. Maybe I should not have used bootstrap then but I had some experience with it… What I liked about the non fluid grid system in Bootstrap 2 was that your website looked more or less the same on desktop and on mobile. On mobile the first thing you would see is a scaled down version of your website with the structure in tact. If you wanted to see the details you would have to zoom in. Now Bootstrap tries to be smart and transforms columns to rows… This is obviously good if you want a fluid website. When I had to do it again I would not use bootstrap again. Instead I would look for something that has a grid system like boostrap 2.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
I checked this out last night and noticed a bug in the nav bar in the justified menu example (in Chrome, when you resize to sm and back to lrg, two of the menu items seem to drop down and unstyle themselves). If the issue is still up by the time I get to a computer, I'll submit an issue on Github.
johnward 13y ago
Last time the RC was posted everyone was saying it was a beta and not an RC. So either it was ready for release or they just released a beta.
joekrill 13y ago
Does Bootstrap now play nice with jQuery UI?
buster 13y ago
Am i the only one who finds that far too many pages look alike thanks to bootstrap and co?

469 points by trumbitta2 13y ago

"Yo Bootstrap, I'm really happy for you, I'll let you finish, but Foundation has one of the best frameworks of all time. One of the best frameworks of all time!" ;-)

Fuzzwah 13y ago
Nice opinion. You could have done me a favor and actually offered it in a more helpful way rather than referencing a quote from an idiot.... If anyone else is interested in checking out the foundation framework, here's the link to save you a google: http://foundation.zurb.com/ http://foundation.zurb.com/
sergiotapia 13y ago
I found myself backing out of using Foundation after downloading their latest version and trying to use a couple of their javascript components. Lots of bugs and generally fugly workarounds needed for the most basic things. I just removed it, and went back to Bootstrap.
- ajselvig 13y ago
  I was also quite surprised that the javascript components seemed to take a step backwards in design and documentation from Foundation 3 to 4. Not sure why that is.
- driverdan 13y ago
  Except Bootstrap 2.x's JS was terribly basic and didn't play well with single page apps. I haven't tried v3 yet so I don't know if it has improved.
  - sergiotapia 13y ago
    I wouldn't know about that; I've never built a single page app.
baby 13y ago
it used to be for sure, but with the box-sizing and the new grid system ? I don't really know anymore. I like Foundation for the forms and the grid syntax but bootstrap has a better default theme and has font awesome for so many icons.
- kibibu 13y ago
  Font Awesome works just fine with Foundation.
  - baby 13y ago
    I've actually never thought about using it on its own since they're advertising it for Bootstrap only.

ibejoeb 13y ago

No submenus is kind of a bummer for applications. Sometimes I work on traditional stuff with an audience that expects this kind of navigation. I still really appreciate it, though. If it turns out I really need them, I'd rather start with Bootstrap than have to start from scratch.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

mmgutz 13y ago

Love the vids!

frank_boyd 13y ago

Awesome! Thanks to all contributors for the hard work!

joeblau 13y ago

Glad to see that Mark put the theme information is right on top :). Hopefully this will allay criticism from the "why is it flat" developers.

benaiah 13y ago

Looks quite nice - I really like the new theme, as it allows you to go for a gradient look but appears much less intrusive than Bootstrap 2's theme, in addition to being optional. Better documentation is also a huge plus.

Kiro 13y ago

Opening the mobile menu still lags a lot on my phone (Galaxy S3, stock browser). Why don't they use CSS animations for it instead? I was really hoping it would have been fixed in v3. Love the rest though.

markdotto 13y ago
We do.
skeletonjelly 13y ago
No issues here both on stock browser and Chrome Beta (Nexus 4). Do you mean the initial delay or rendering jitter?
- Kiro 13y ago
  Rendering jitter.

bluetidepro 13y ago

> "With v3, we've gone flat. Don't call it a trend—it's all about customization, folks." I hope everyone catches that part of the post. It's very important, I think, based on the previous HN thread comments. I've been quite surprised at how many people are in an uproar about v3 being flat. People have been saying things like "it's a dumb trend", "horrible UX", "so ugly", etc. For a skeleton starter template like this, flat is good. Having the design flat encourages you to build on it or theme it to your OWN style so all of the sites using Bootstrap don't end up looking the same (like they have in past versions). It was also annoying in past versions when you had to declare no gradients, or reverse engineer things to lose the "default theme". Making it flat now allows you to build up, where past versions made you go backwards first, then build the theme the way you wanted. I hope more people realize that rational now they have specifically called it out. With that said, well done everyone that helped on the project! Great work! :)

colmvp 13y ago
A dumb 'trend' that's been around for decades. And agreed on your points. I'm looking forward to no longer having to override superfluous elements for the sake of customization.
tsurantino 13y ago
And for people who are still concerned (and even though this is mentioned directly in the post - some people won't necessarily read it). There is a theme provided, which I personally think improves on Bootstrap 2's version. http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/ http://getbootstrap.com/examples/theme/
- kipple 13y ago
  The subtle color enhancements are nice (nothing like lowering contrast to make things look classier) but the button hovers appear broken.. that was an important bit of sparkle in twbs2 I hope 'twas just an oversight.
  - nobodysfool 13y ago

karsonenns 13y ago

Now I'm waiting on a SCSS port of it.

mbell 13y ago
I've been using this port without issue: https://github.com/jlong/sass-twitter-bootstrap/tree/3.0.0-wip https://github.com/jlong/sass-twitter-bootstrap/tree/3.0.0-w...
movingahead 13y ago
If you are looking for SASS and Rails, this port works great. https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass https://github.com/thomas-mcdonald/bootstrap-sass
- markdotto 13y ago
  Yup, and we'll be working with these folks make this more official shortly. Stay tuned!
  - Flenser 13y ago
    That's great, there are a couple of sass ports for 2 and it was time consuming evaluating them so an officially blessed port would be great. For those of us integrating it with web app where we use semantic class names that we want to map to template styles, it would help if there were sass versions that create no concrete styles, just mixins and placeholder styles, so that we can extend our classes with bootstrap ones without inheriting styles on elements where we don't want the bootstrap style. e.g. I wanted the .nav-tabs style but already had my own .nav styling. Do you have any plans to make it possible to extend from bootstrap in this way?
- taternuts 13y ago
  I might try this when I get home - I'm new to Ruby/RoR and I had a hell of a time getting the twitter-bootstrap-rails gem and it's dependencies installed on my windows machine and just went with Foundation.

halisaurus 13y ago

Well I'm glad I finished a customization of the v2 carousel last night. Will this thing break if I update? I'm betting yes.

AtTheLast 13y ago

Nice work bootstrap team! I really like how mobile friendly this version of bootstrap is!

jimaek 13y ago

Get it from a fast CDN http://www.jsdelivr.com/#!bootstrap http://www.jsdelivr.com/#!bootstrap

clone1018 13y ago
I prefer http://www.bootstrapcdn.com/ http://www.bootstrapcdn.com/

gavinballard 13y ago

I've been working with the release candidates for a while for my Shopify-based Bootstrap theme (http://bootstrapforshopify.com/ http://bootstrapforshopify.com/), and while it's been a bit of a tough ride sometimes (with pretty significant changes from release to release), I'm really impressed with what v3 brings to the table. Hopefully, the way the new styles are laid out will encourage more people to treat Bootstrap as a starting point rather than the end game for layout and styling (although it's a pretty good starting point in of itself). Edit: And, of course, massive thanks to Mark and Jacob (plus the ever-increasing community) for all of the work they've put in over the last two years :).

markdotto 13y ago
Yeah, sorry about those changes in the RCs. Really we used the wrong label and are sorry about that. All in all though, everything with those pre-releases worked out really well. Just a naming thing :). And thank you! <3
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- gavinballard 13y ago
  Apologies not necessary :).
  - borton 13y ago
    I appreciate the apology. I updated a site on the assumption that RC1 was a release candidate and not a work in progress. Now I need to update the site again. Ugh.
    - random42 13y ago
      Release candidates are expected to have bugs! I generally prefer using Major.minor.1 or Major.minor.2 of a new version (as many more bugs get fixed in those versions, after the stable version is used in production environment) or the last major version with all bug fixes.

baby 13y ago

Honestly this is the biggest point in Bootstrap 3 : > box-sizing: border-box I never understood why they didn't use it.

gavinballard 13y ago
IE 6-7 support?
- markdotto 13y ago
  v2.x supported IE7, so yeah. Since we dropped that we were able to make use of it. Edit for typo
- baby 13y ago
  I feel like most people using bootstrap don't really care about supporting IE 6-7. If you're really serious about supporting these browser there are two main reasons : - you want people from the companies who are forcing them to use IE, to be able to view the website as intended (and I'm sure they can understand that it doesn't look as good as on the latest version of Firefox) - you want people in China to have the best experience on your website. Then I believe you should look at other solutions.
  - markdotto 13y ago
    Sorry, my typo made this more confusing. We never supported IE6. IE7 was supported through 2.3.2. With v3, we dropped IE7 and now support IE8+.
    - Digit-Al 13y ago
      Really? I have had a look at bootswatch.com using IE8 and a lot of the stuff (certainly columns, drop-dows, and navbars) doesn't work at all. I just get javascript errors. I would contend that if you want something that works in IE8 then avoid this like the plague. Unless someone can tell me differently.

phillmv 13y ago

You can't actually see all the left-menu items on http://getbootstrap.com/components/ http://getbootstrap.com/components/ on a 13inch screen.

STRML 13y ago
I can't see all of them on a 1080p screen at 125% zoom, either.
- ZoF 13y ago
  If you scroll to the bottom of the page the sidebar will eventually scroll down and show them. Still an error though, and the irony, given the context, makes it a bit comical.
- SiVal 13y ago
  I can't see them all, even at 80% zoom, on a rMBP using Firefox with three rows of browser tabs. There are too many ways for this component to fail.
walden42 13y ago
Same here, 15".
adamzegelin 13y ago
Which browser? Works fine for me in Safari 6 at any zoom level.
- phillmv 13y ago
  Chrome, 10.6, 1280x800.
  - jjcm 13y ago
    It probably wasn't tested with this old of a version of chrome/webkit. Works fine for me (I'm on Chrome 28.0) at that resolution. Assuming the browser version is the issue, I don't really see it as being a problem that bootstrap needs to address. Versions of chrome older than 22 account for 1.3% of the browser market share, and since bootstrap has dropped support for IE7 (0.7% MS) and FF3.6, it isn't surprising that they aren't targeting this. [1] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_chrome.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_chrome.asp

davidw 13y ago

Here's a question: what's the difference between this icon font, and font awesome, which for a time looked to be the 'go to' way of doing icons? I have no horse in that race, and they both look good to me.

manojlds 13y ago
FontAwesome is free and open source. And has more number of icons than what you will get with this Bootstrap only free version of glyphicons.
stephen_g 13y ago
You can use whichever one you like better... I'm using Font Awesome on one of my Bootstrap 3 based sites because it has more icons.
highace 13y ago
I just tried to swap in the new font-based glyphicon icons over the top of the old image based ones. First of all it's not a clean swap, because the class name structure has changed. Secondly, the font glyphs seem to have totally random positioning, so depending on how you use them you'll need to tweak the css for each one (or certainly groups of them) so they align properly with the text/button/whatever. I reverted, and dropped in Font Awesome. It was as simple as changing one line of css if you use the CDN, done. No tweaking required, and there's load more to choose from.
- kipple 13y ago
  I also have found Font Awesome to be an easy and comprehensive solution (mmmm that huge icon selection, dang!). I honestly don't understand, why hasn't FA been folded into Bootstrap? Is it some licensing thing?

Sir_Cmpwn 13y ago

I'm glad they decided to keep glyphicons properly integrated.

spitfire 13y ago

Odd error on Safari 6.0.5 here. Where you should have three column layouts in the example page you get a single column list type layout. (Not a designer.) I've disabled both adblock and clicktoflash plugins.

zjgreen 13y ago

wasn't the easiest upgrade from 2 to 3 on one site of mine...

alien3d 13y ago
yup me to.. they changed the css a lot.. have to check one by one.. :(.. But output outsome. Rc1 ->rc2 -> 3.0.. my menu 3 drill down work again.Rc2 not work.

philip1209 13y ago

Bootswatch is in the process of updating its themes to Bootstrap 3 too: http://bootswatch.com/ http://bootswatch.com/

johnward 13y ago
I've never heard of bootswatch. I could see many people using this. One thing bothers me on your page though. The header text is fixed with no background so it ends up jumbled with the other text: http://cl.ly/image/3D133Y1E1V2P http://cl.ly/image/3D133Y1E1V2P fyi I'm using chrome28 on osx 10.8.4

peferron 13y ago

FWIW, migrating from a RC downloaded 2 days ago to this final release broke some stuff, most notably related to glyphicons CSS - so if you plan on upgrading, just be aware that it might not be seamless.

joshfinnie 13y ago
I have found that `btn-large` changed to `btn-lg` during the release from RC to today. So definitely take a look at this for larger projects.

zerolinesofcode 13y ago

Checkout roostrap too, one of the first Java web frameworks to support the new Bootstrap 3 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6241294 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6241294

the_cat_kittles 13y ago

odd bug- i just switched from rc 2 to the official release- now the page shifts slightly left when modals open, and back when they close. What is going on?

aerolite 13y ago

Do you have a list of the differences between RC2 and this?

steveax 13y ago

I'm just glad they kept table.table and label.label The department of redundancy department can sleep peacefully tonight.

scotty79 13y ago

> Everything in Bootstrap gets box-sizing: border-box Why w3c didn't make it default is beyond me.

weavie 13y ago

Awesome. Does this mean no more breaking changes for vn 3? It's been a mad game of catch up so far, every time I update I have to spend some time going through and updating the html to use slightly changed class names.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

pacomerh 13y ago

On the grids part, basically added what foundation already had

bigbassroller 13y ago

I'd like to see a collapse menu come from the left or right incorporated into Bootstrap. Like the one at http://purecss.io/ http://purecss.io/

LinaLauneBaer 13y ago

Edit: Oh. I have just found out by another HN post that I did not understand the new grid system... Here is a link that explains it very well: http://www.helloerik.com/bootstrap-3-grid-introduction http://www.helloerik.com/bootstrap-3-grid-introduction I have used the release candidates for my own personal website and it has been a pretty good experience. However I liked the result I got with Bootstrap 2 more. To say it upfront: I am not a web developer. I am doing something completely different professionally. But maybe that makes my experience with Bootstrap kinda interesting… :) I had the main problem with the mobile first grid system. It changed quite a lot when compared to Bootstrap 2. I made a product page for my new app and I wanted to show thumbnails. When using the built in thumbnail class wierd things happen when you resize the window: The actual size of the thumbnail changes and it gets distorted as a result. Also the new grid system has the effect - at least in my case - that when resizing the window, the overall width of the columns that contain my text expand even though I made the window smaller. And then when I make the window even smaller the columns containing my text are becoming less wide. I think this is because of the fluid layout. Personally I do not like fluid websites at all. Maybe I should not have used bootstrap then but I had some experience with it… What I liked about the non fluid grid system in Bootstrap 2 was that your website looked more or less the same on desktop and on mobile. On mobile the first thing you would see is a scaled down version of your website with the structure in tact. If you wanted to see the details you would have to zoom in. Now Bootstrap tries to be smart and transforms columns to rows… This is obviously good if you want a fluid website. When I had to do it again I would not use bootstrap again. Instead I would look for something that has a grid system like boostrap 2.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

I checked this out last night and noticed a bug in the nav bar in the justified menu example (in Chrome, when you resize to sm and back to lrg, two of the menu items seem to drop down and unstyle themselves). If the issue is still up by the time I get to a computer, I'll submit an issue on Github.

johnward 13y ago

Last time the RC was posted everyone was saying it was a beta and not an RC. So either it was ready for release or they just released a beta.

joekrill 13y ago

Does Bootstrap now play nice with jQuery UI?

buster 13y ago

Am i the only one who finds that far too many pages look alike thanks to bootstrap and co?