<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Live Slideshow Today</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scienceroll.com/2007/05/15/live-slideshow-today/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scienceroll.com/2007/05/15/live-slideshow-today/</link>
	<description>A doctor&#039;s journey in genetics PhD and medicine through web 2.0</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:42:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Attis</title>
		<link>http://scienceroll.com/2007/05/15/live-slideshow-today/#comment-8832</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Attis]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2007 07:49:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scienceroll.com/2007/05/15/live-slideshow-today/#comment-8832</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[RSS stands to me as a shining example of 1) something hyped that still can be useful, 2) the failure of an awful design trend to use RDF where XML would be appropriate. See OWL for another example.

And, by the way, I was disappointed by my realization that &#039;Web 2.0&#039; failed to include the earlier (late 90s) aim of the Web community (that is to mean W3C) to separate content from format? Ever tried to machine parse anything that came off Wordpress? It&#039;s awful, skins rule over &#039;es, so it&#039;s essentially hopeless. RSS is the answer to this problem, and it is indeed an elegant one (RSS 2.0, at least).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RSS stands to me as a shining example of 1) something hyped that still can be useful, 2) the failure of an awful design trend to use RDF where XML would be appropriate. See OWL for another example.</p>
<p>And, by the way, I was disappointed by my realization that &#8216;Web 2.0&#8242; failed to include the earlier (late 90s) aim of the Web community (that is to mean W3C) to separate content from format? Ever tried to machine parse anything that came off WordPress? It&#8217;s awful, skins rule over &#8216;es, so it&#8217;s essentially hopeless. RSS is the answer to this problem, and it is indeed an elegant one (RSS 2.0, at least).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

