On 15-09-3 1:55 am, Owen Leonard wrote:
On 01.09.2015 05:30, David Cook wrote:
I was just looking to use “.text-success” in the staff client, when I noticed that it didn’t appear to exist in bootstrap.min.css… even though it should. If I recall correctly, both the OPAC and staff client use customized builds of Bootstrap in order to omit features which we don't (didn't) use and keep file sizes down. The version 2.x Bootstrap customizer didn't automatically provide good notes about what features were left out, so it's not obvious from looking at them.
On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 3:22 AM, Kivilahti Olli-Antti <olli-antti.kivilahti@jns.fi> wrote:
I would just upgrade the bootstrap to the newest version. "Just?" At this point we are probably looking at "just" jumping from Bootstrap 2 to Bootstrap 4 (now in alpha), and there should be plenty of discussion of the process, including how much of Bootstrap's built-in look we want to retain, what features we want to include, and how willing we are to accept Bootstrap 4's minimum browser requirements. hmm, perhaps a good 'transitional' compromise would be to use a full bootstrap 2.x build
can we anticipate what parts of BS we would (or wouldn't) require in the future? do we gain much from having a stripped BS build? is it worth the inconvenience to developers? -- Mason