5 ms·

Changes of note: "Interchange uses media queries to dynamically load responsive content that is appropriate for different users' browsers.” http://foundation.

by pwenzel 13y ago

Changes of note: "Interchange uses media queries to dynamically load responsive content that is appropriate for different users' browsers.” http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/interchange.html http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/interchange.html Offcanvas Javascript (Originally bolt-on, not bundled) http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/offcanvas.html http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/offcanvas.html "Abide is an HTML5 form validation library that supports the native API by using patterns and required attributes." http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/abide.html http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/components/abide.html Zepto support has been removed from Foundation 5. Docs are continuing to look better, and they still have docs back to Foundation v2. Thanks Zurb!

fein 13y ago
Also, no changes to the class and attribute semantics (that I've found yet)! The only migration that should have to happen at this point is JS fixes.
- mos2 13y ago
  There is a migration guide detailing all of the changes in JS: http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/upgrading.html http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/upgrading.html as well as a migration plugin that will allow you to use the f4 style js and get deprecation warnings via the console: https://github.com/zurb/foundation-migrate https://github.com/zurb/foundation-migrate
dkoch 13y ago
What do people recommend for functionality similar to Interchange on a Bootstrap 3 site?
- elithrar 13y ago
  > What do people recommend for functionality similar to Interchange on a Bootstrap 3 site? Why not just use Interchange itself?
  - dkoch 13y ago
    It seems to have dependencies on core Foundation Javascript. I don't think it can be used stand-alone.
bmelton 13y ago
I've been looking through this, trying to remember why I recently switched to Bootstrap. Was it a widget that was missing? Maybe a date-picker? Foundation doesn't really have date-pickers and such. Hrm. Oh, right. It was angular-ui, which uses Bootstrap. Angular integration for any of these projects is a BIG win. Because of that, I'm eagerly awaiting an RC for Angular-Semantic[1], so that I can cut over to Semantic-UI, which is, I think, best of breed as far as these frontend aesthetics go. [1] - https://github.com/caitp/angular-semantic https://github.com/caitp/angular-semantic.
- bluejaythemes 13y ago
  Here’s a datepicker for Foundation. https://github.com/najlepsiwebdesigner/foundation-datepicker https://github.com/najlepsiwebdesigner/foundation-datepicker
- scotth 13y ago
  I recently made the same decision.
- Bahamut 13y ago
  Angular UI Bootstrap is CSS agnostic - you can use it with Foundation just fine
  - bmelton 13y ago
    I'm aware of that, but there are styling differences between Foundation and Bootstrap. The Angular-UI implementation, while self-contained, is going to have a different .modal() implementation than Foundation's, so there's always going to be relics in the implementation. Implementing twice the framework for the same functionality seems a sure fire way to induce headaches. Your advice isn't wrong, and worked great for a good number of months, but requires ignoring the JS components of Foundation altogether, which somewhat negates the benefits of having a big ol' framework in the first place (IMHO).
    - Bahamut 13y ago
TylerE 13y ago
The other BIG change is now having a medium size out of the box.
mos2 13y ago
I'm curious as to why Zepto support was removed. Zurb was pretty big on it for Foundation 3. Smaller size than jQuery, faster load time on mobile, etc. Any ideas why this was scratched?
- smileyj68 13y ago
  There were some definite compatibility issues we ran into and while jQuery 2 isn't perfect, it's pretty good, good enough we felt confident switching back from Zepto. Nothing against Zepto, just pragmatism.

by pwenzel 13y ago

fein 13y ago

Also, no changes to the class and attribute semantics (that I've found yet)! The only migration that should have to happen at this point is JS fixes.

mos2 13y ago
There is a migration guide detailing all of the changes in JS: http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/upgrading.html http://foundation.zurb.com/docs/upgrading.html as well as a migration plugin that will allow you to use the f4 style js and get deprecation warnings via the console: https://github.com/zurb/foundation-migrate https://github.com/zurb/foundation-migrate

dkoch 13y ago

What do people recommend for functionality similar to Interchange on a Bootstrap 3 site?

elithrar 13y ago
> What do people recommend for functionality similar to Interchange on a Bootstrap 3 site? Why not just use Interchange itself?
- dkoch 13y ago
  It seems to have dependencies on core Foundation Javascript. I don't think it can be used stand-alone.

bmelton 13y ago

I've been looking through this, trying to remember why I recently switched to Bootstrap. Was it a widget that was missing? Maybe a date-picker? Foundation doesn't really have date-pickers and such. Hrm. Oh, right. It was angular-ui, which uses Bootstrap. Angular integration for any of these projects is a BIG win. Because of that, I'm eagerly awaiting an RC for Angular-Semantic[1], so that I can cut over to Semantic-UI, which is, I think, best of breed as far as these frontend aesthetics go. [1] - https://github.com/caitp/angular-semantic https://github.com/caitp/angular-semantic.

bluejaythemes 13y ago
Here’s a datepicker for Foundation. https://github.com/najlepsiwebdesigner/foundation-datepicker https://github.com/najlepsiwebdesigner/foundation-datepicker
scotth 13y ago
I recently made the same decision.
Bahamut 13y ago
Angular UI Bootstrap is CSS agnostic - you can use it with Foundation just fine
- bmelton 13y ago
  I'm aware of that, but there are styling differences between Foundation and Bootstrap. The Angular-UI implementation, while self-contained, is going to have a different .modal() implementation than Foundation's, so there's always going to be relics in the implementation. Implementing twice the framework for the same functionality seems a sure fire way to induce headaches. Your advice isn't wrong, and worked great for a good number of months, but requires ignoring the JS components of Foundation altogether, which somewhat negates the benefits of having a big ol' framework in the first place (IMHO).
  - Bahamut 13y ago

TylerE 13y ago

The other BIG change is now having a medium size out of the box.

mos2 13y ago

I'm curious as to why Zepto support was removed. Zurb was pretty big on it for Foundation 3. Smaller size than jQuery, faster load time on mobile, etc. Any ideas why this was scratched?

smileyj68 13y ago
There were some definite compatibility issues we ran into and while jQuery 2 isn't perfect, it's pretty good, good enough we felt confident switching back from Zepto. Nothing against Zepto, just pragmatism.