<?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: XTech 2007, some highlighted notes</title>
	<atom:link href="http://philwilson.org/blog/2007/05/xtech-2007-some-highlighted-notes/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://philwilson.org/blog/2007/05/xtech-2007-some-highlighted-notes</link>
	<description>a geek commodity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 11:42:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Wilson</title>
		<link>http://philwilson.org/blog/2007/05/xtech-2007-some-highlighted-notes/comment-page-1#comment-1110</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 May 2007 10:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philwilson.org/blog/2007/05/xtech-2007-some-highlighted-notes#comment-1110</guid>
		<description>haha! I&#039;ve been waiting for someone to notice that!&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;There seemed to be  a couple of big fat W3C elephants in the room.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The first was that the w3c are doing stuff for use in five or ten years&#039; time whereas most of the other talks are about things you can do today or next year, which makes them seem like futurologists.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;The other is that they really didn&#039;t seem that happy that HTML5 was going ahead, and what the hell was wrong with XHTML2 anyway?&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It must be nice to work in a standards organisation where everything you do meets some Platonic Idea of perfection.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>haha! I&#8217;ve been waiting for someone to notice that!</p>
<p>There seemed to be  a couple of big fat W3C elephants in the room.</p>
<p>The first was that the w3c are doing stuff for use in five or ten years&#8217; time whereas most of the other talks are about things you can do today or next year, which makes them seem like futurologists.</p>
<p>The other is that they really didn&#8217;t seem that happy that HTML5 was going ahead, and what the hell was wrong with XHTML2 anyway?</p>
<p>It must be nice to work in a standards organisation where everything you do meets some Platonic Idea of perfection.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brian</title>
		<link>http://philwilson.org/blog/2007/05/xtech-2007-some-highlighted-notes/comment-page-1#comment-1109</link>
		<dc:creator>Brian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 16:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://philwilson.org/blog/2007/05/xtech-2007-some-highlighted-notes#comment-1109</guid>
		<description>Hi Phil&lt;br/&gt;   The only statement you made that didn&#039;t have a link to further information &quot;W3C are crazy&quot;.  Can you expand on this.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Ta&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Brian Kelly</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Phil<br />   The only statement you made that didn&#8217;t have a link to further information &#8220;W3C are crazy&#8221;.  Can you expand on this.</p>
<p>Ta</p>
<p>Brian Kelly</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

