<?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: The two approaches to JavaScript (and why we need a third)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/the-two-approaches-to-javascript-and-why-we-need-a-third/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/the-two-approaches-to-javascript-and-why-we-need-a-third</link>
	<description>Adam DuVander’s thoughts on keeping things simple.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 07:03:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Simplicity Rules &#38;#187; Surfing without Javascript</title>
		<link>http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/the-two-approaches-to-javascript-and-why-we-need-a-third/comment-page-1#comment-53</link>
		<dc:creator>Simplicity Rules &#38;#187; Surfing without Javascript</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yamhill.adamduvander.com/news/the-two-approaches-to-javascript-and-why-we-need-a-third#comment-53</guid>
		<description>[...] Have you recently ventured into your browser settings and disabled Javascript? It can be an enlightening experience, especially if your sites make heavy use of client-side interactions. About 18 months ago, I suggested degradable Javascript. It wasn&#8217;t a new idea, but it really seemed like the great divide between anti-JS and pro-JS camps was growing. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Have you recently ventured into your browser settings and disabled Javascript? It can be an enlightening experience, especially if your sites make heavy use of client-side interactions. About 18 months ago, I suggested degradable Javascript. It wasn&#38;#8217;t a new idea, but it really seemed like the great divide between anti-JS and pro-JS camps was growing. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simplicity Rules &#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#187; Two new Web development articles</title>
		<link>http://www.adamduvander.com/simple/the-two-approaches-to-javascript-and-why-we-need-a-third/comment-page-1#comment-52</link>
		<dc:creator>Simplicity Rules &#38;#187; Blog Archive &#38;#187; Two new Web development articles</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2006 18:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://yamhill.adamduvander.com/news/the-two-approaches-to-javascript-and-why-we-need-a-third#comment-52</guid>
		<description>[...] Then, I carefully stuck my toe into the buzzword and backlash world of Ajax (technology that brings us draggable maps, among other responsive interfaces). This despite my feelings about Javascript. In Nitty Gritty Ajax I show how to get started. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Then, I carefully stuck my toe into the buzzword and backlash world of Ajax (technology that brings us draggable maps, among other responsive interfaces). This despite my feelings about Javascript. In Nitty Gritty Ajax I show how to get started. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

