<?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 &#038; 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's view on technology, software development, and world domination.</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-beta3</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<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's very much possible that I've missed something here, but as of yet I've not seen a sign of Microsoft moving towards submitting this as a standard.

I understand that it'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'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'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>
