Eagerly awaiting Bootstrap 4, because now the dimensions will all be based on ems, not pixels, making a scalable UI for accessibility a practicality.

I've worked with a scalable UI using jQuery Mobile. One of my colleagues (painfully) patched jQuery Mobile CSS to change all the pixel dimensions. I did some further tweaks, such as making sure borders are still pixels. (You don't really want 1 3/4 pixel borders...)

I've done a lot of layout work with flex-box CSS, since it is supported on all modern devices, and is pretty-much flexible layout magic. There are THREE syntaxes, though, as the industry has worked through the bumps. The Bourbon mixin library for Sass deals with the chaos for you, and so I've used it in the past for flexible layout.

I recently discovered a little CSS gem called Flexbox Grid

It's a drop-in replacement for the Bootstrap grid module. I use Bootstrap Sass edition, use the .scss source files, and omit the grid component. flexbox-grid uses flex-box CSS instead of floats and clears, and brings the ability to make boxes flexible and grow/shrink around content, so that you are not locked-in to a strict grid structure.

I see some developers are using jQuery Mobile's Ajax and page transition code without the rest of jQuery Mobile, or else using a custom JQM with all of the other widgets cut-out. But it is still limited to a single container, and has a lot of crufty code for old browsers that most of us don't need.

I'm looking with great interest at MoOx/pjax · GitHub See the author's impressive personal home page, that uses this: Freelance Front-end Web Developer (HTML5, CSS 3, Javascript, Responsive web design, front-end performance optimization)

Note that it's not the same as jquery/pjax, in fact it doesn't even need jQuery! It can replace MULTIPLE independent elements on a page from a single Ajax request, and with a bit of extra code, can load off-screen and then do transitions like JQM,

As you can see, lately I'm going in the direction of just putting-together bits and pieces of code and CSS, rather than looking for a framework that, alas, may not materialize. Everybody is focused on MVC/MVCC in the browser, which does make a lot of sense if you want to make a performant website or webapp. And for PhoneGap, where you are stuck in Javascript. But it comes with a huge learning curve, and very considerable overlap with what Rhodes already offers in the way of MVC. Where I have seen new UI frameworks, they always want to hitch a ride on some client-side MVC, and I haven't a clue how to effectuate a divorce - it looks complicated!

I'd still welcome news of a new UI/widget-only framework that can deal with Ajax page/section loading!

I think you already know my answer, Mark.

None. That is, if what you mean is an MVC framework.

I think it's best to stick to only UI frameworks for JS.

Now, I'd love to find a more modern and lightweight alternative to jQuery Mobile. I'm working on a new project using Bootstrap. I can live with it, but to me, it's TOO lightweight. It is certainly faster than JQM, which is a disappointment (for JQM), given that you are re-loading (from cache, of course) all of the CSS and JS on every page! And I hate grid systems.

I'd like something that does do page transitions. And pages within pages. That is, I'd like it to automatically (like JQM) load-in another page, with transitions, either to replace the current page, or into an element on the current page. (I had so much hope for the JQM Page Container - and then after all that fiddling they did for 1.4 - it was only an internal change, and there is only one page container...)

So, I'd like a fancy UI framework. Without the MVC part. (Optional extra would be fine, would make those that want such things happy.)

Something like Dojo. Haven't looked at it in a while, and looked like it was dying, but now I see there's been a fresh effort. Honestly, though, I haven't surveyed the alternatives lately, so would love to hear what people are using that provides a rich UI without templates and MVC.

JQM doesn't look like it's going anywhere, though, I'm afraid.