<?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: Gecko and WebKit in 2008</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ajaxian.com/archives/gecko-and-webkit-in-2008/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ajaxian.com/archives/gecko-and-webkit-in-2008</link>
	<description>Cleaning up the web with Ajax</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:36:37 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mikael Bergkvist</title>
		<link>http://ajaxian.com/archives/gecko-and-webkit-in-2008/comment-page-1#comment-267328</link>
		<dc:creator>Mikael Bergkvist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 23:30:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ajaxian.com/?p=4407#comment-267328</guid>
		<description>To have two competing (friendly) systems, which are both open source sounds like a wet dream to me. 
What&#039;s the problem?
If they are both standards compliant and if they are both in reasonable agreement on where to go next, this could work out really, really good.
Both sides could learn from the others strengths and/or weaknesses, and come up with a solution which would benefit both, since it&#039;s open source.
Now, if only IE8 would go down the open source path as well.
I&#039;m not seeing why not, not doing it seems to do nothing for them, but to a) isolate them, and b) making it damn near impossible to benefit from what others are doing.
If IE was a commercial software which they were selling and thus needed to protect, whether this is actually logical or not, maybe, but as it stands, I dont get it.
If someone does, please explain it to me...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To have two competing (friendly) systems, which are both open source sounds like a wet dream to me.<br />
What&#8217;s the problem?<br />
If they are both standards compliant and if they are both in reasonable agreement on where to go next, this could work out really, really good.<br />
Both sides could learn from the others strengths and/or weaknesses, and come up with a solution which would benefit both, since it&#8217;s open source.<br />
Now, if only IE8 would go down the open source path as well.<br />
I&#8217;m not seeing why not, not doing it seems to do nothing for them, but to a) isolate them, and b) making it damn near impossible to benefit from what others are doing.<br />
If IE was a commercial software which they were selling and thus needed to protect, whether this is actually logical or not, maybe, but as it stands, I dont get it.<br />
If someone does, please explain it to me&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeria</title>
		<link>http://ajaxian.com/archives/gecko-and-webkit-in-2008/comment-page-1#comment-267303</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeria</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ajaxian.com/?p=4407#comment-267303</guid>
		<description>More new stuff in Firefox 3.1
http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_3.1_for_developers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>More new stuff in Firefox 3.1<br />
<a href="http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_3.1_for_developers" rel="nofollow">http://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_3.1_for_developers</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
