<?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: Internet Explorer 8 an improvement but still the laggard</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2009/03/19/internet-explorer-8-an-improvement-but-still-the-laggard/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2009/03/19/internet-explorer-8-an-improvement-but-still-the-laggard/</link>
	<description>Top Technology news</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:30:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Big M</title>
		<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2009/03/19/internet-explorer-8-an-improvement-but-still-the-laggard/comment-page-1/#comment-165890</link>
		<dc:creator>The Big M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2009 02:25:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2009/03/19/internet-explorer-8-an-improvement-but-still-the-laggard/#comment-165890</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t get it. 

So it&#039;s bad to have new features because they&#039;re hard to explain to your grandmother? Does that mean that Safari is worse, and the beta of firefox as well because they have those features?

The other &quot;bad&quot; entry about backward compatibility has also been addressed by the button. You either don&#039;t advance or you do - are you saying you&#039;d prefer it stayed at the previous standards level since the button still apparently makes things bad?

I just don&#039;t get how either of those are &quot;bad.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t get it. </p>
<p>So it&#8217;s bad to have new features because they&#8217;re hard to explain to your grandmother? Does that mean that Safari is worse, and the beta of firefox as well because they have those features?</p>
<p>The other &#8220;bad&#8221; entry about backward compatibility has also been addressed by the button. You either don&#8217;t advance or you do &#8211; are you saying you&#8217;d prefer it stayed at the previous standards level since the button still apparently makes things bad?</p>
<p>I just don&#8217;t get how either of those are &#8220;bad.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DavidB</title>
		<link>http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2009/03/19/internet-explorer-8-an-improvement-but-still-the-laggard/comment-page-1/#comment-165868</link>
		<dc:creator>DavidB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:53:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:/2009/03/19/internet-explorer-8-an-improvement-but-still-the-laggard/#comment-165868</guid>
		<description>Already hacked and confirmed by MS as hacked. 
But Safari gets hacked far easier. 

Check news on CanSecWest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Already hacked and confirmed by MS as hacked.<br />
But Safari gets hacked far easier. </p>
<p>Check news on CanSecWest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

