As mentioned, one of the first things that should be addressed when you're building a competing framework is what yours offers that the "big boys" don't. I don't really see that; indeed, what I'm first hit with is something that doesn't look as polished as Bootstrap.
As I poke through it, the whole framework looks like an analog to Bootstrap; I have to ask ... why? Is responsive text the only thing not available on Bootstrap?
Also the grid designations of .two.thirds versus .span9 makes me vomit all over myself.
I appreciate and respect your opinion on this, but can you explain what about these semantic class names you find is causing you nausea? I've considered having them be chained (i.e. .two-thirds) instead of seperated, but find myself thinking that "<aside class="one mobile third"></aside>" and "<article class="two mobile thirds"></article>" is more natural for me to type
As mentioned, one of the first things that should be addressed when you're building a competing framework is what yours offers that the "big boys" don't. I don't really see that; indeed, what I'm first hit with is something that doesn't look as polished as Bootstrap.
As I poke through it, the whole framework looks like an analog to Bootstrap; I have to ask ... why? Is responsive text the only thing not available on Bootstrap?
Also the grid designations of .two.thirds versus .span9 makes me vomit all over myself.