I have this nagging suspicion that this whole "responsive HTML" movement is driven largely by a desire for a layout that works on (a) an average desktop screen and (b) on an iPhone / smartphone. And so instead of designing two separate sites, let's design something that looks good on (a) and (b), and also has an intermediate state that we pass through when resizing the window between (a) to (b). Nobody would actually care for these intermediate states (because, frankly, who does routinely browse on a desktop at 500px in width?), but since we <i>can</i> generalize, let's do it. And also let's call it some fancy name and put some theory behind it.<p>Point being - I don't see a point in responsive layouts.<p>There are two extremes - the desktops and the small-screen mobile devices. These cover 99.9% of all users. Designing an uniform solution for both is not too alike to building a File I/O framework to hide the differences between reading from the local file and one on the FTP server. Sure it is nice, but why? It just conceals the important differences and creates whole bunch of new problems.
Looks good, I've got few questions for you:<p>- Why put respond.js in the footer? (H5BP puts it up in the head with the call to Modernizr)<p>- Why self-close your meta and link tags if you're using HTML5?<p>- Why doesn't the image in the demo resize as you resize the window? (img { max-width: 100%; } fixes that)
Interestingly, the github page that the marketing page is hosted on, is quite responsive.<p>Just resized it to all different sizes and it still looks good.<p>Even the code snippets fold gracefully.
I must ask, why the name “Gridless”? Surely HTML/CSS frameworks and grid systems are completely different things? The name almost seems to suggest that the use of a grid is a bad thing. Just the way I perceived it :)
Awesome! I have been thinking about making something like this, but it looks like you did a better job than I would have. Responsive design is an idea who's time has come.
On a slightly unrelated note, I think the term 'responsive' is unnecessarily overloaded. I thought there were some performance problems with the normal HTML5 boilerplate !<p>Could 'screen adaptive' or 'multi-screen' be a better name ?