<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: IE7: Of Time &amp; Standards</title>
	<atom:link href="http://adamcaudill.com/2006/04/10/ie7-of-time-standards/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://adamcaudill.com/2006/04/10/ie7-of-time-standards/</link>
	<description>Adam&#039;s view on technology, software development, and world domination.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:17:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adam</title>
		<link>http://adamcaudill.com/2006/04/10/ie7-of-time-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-19</link>
		<dc:creator>Adam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:13:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adamcaudill.com/2006/04/10/ie7-of-time-standards/#comment-19</guid>
		<description>Hoopskier,

Actually, I did notice that part. My concern is that in building on top of a standard, you still end up with something that is intended to serve only the users of a single platform (IE in this case).

If HTML+TIME was to be submitted to the W3C, for review as an extention to SMIL 2.0, then I would have no issue with it. Now, it&#039;s very much possible that I&#039;ve missed something here, but as of yet I&#039;ve not seen a sign of Microsoft moving towards submitting this as a standard.

I understand that it&#039;s hard to develop and submit new technologies for standardization without working implementations, yet one must be careful about pushing these non-standard technologies for use in production environments.

It&#039;s all too easy to become dependent on something like TIME, which is not yet supported in other platforms. This leaves many people out in the cold.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hoopskier,</p>
<p>Actually, I did notice that part. My concern is that in building on top of a standard, you still end up with something that is intended to serve only the users of a single platform (IE in this case).</p>
<p>If HTML+TIME was to be submitted to the W3C, for review as an extention to SMIL 2.0, then I would have no issue with it. Now, it&#8217;s very much possible that I&#8217;ve missed something here, but as of yet I&#8217;ve not seen a sign of Microsoft moving towards submitting this as a standard.</p>
<p>I understand that it&#8217;s hard to develop and submit new technologies for standardization without working implementations, yet one must be careful about pushing these non-standard technologies for use in production environments.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s all too easy to become dependent on something like TIME, which is not yet supported in other platforms. This leaves many people out in the cold.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hoopskier</title>
		<link>http://adamcaudill.com/2006/04/10/ie7-of-time-standards/comment-page-1/#comment-18</link>
		<dc:creator>Hoopskier</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Apr 2006 03:52:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://adamcaudill.com/2006/04/10/ie7-of-time-standards/#comment-18</guid>
		<description>I guess you missed the part where it said HTML+TIME is based on SMIL 2.0 (a W3C standard)...  (Then again I don&#039;t know how closely it matches the spec.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess you missed the part where it said HTML+TIME is based on SMIL 2.0 (a W3C standard)&#8230;  (Then again I don&#8217;t know how closely it matches the spec.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

