<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Six JavaScript Features</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer</link>
	<description>My random mumblings about web development and PC hardware.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 12:11:55 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer#comment-7118</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:52:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hddkillers.com/?p=23#comment-7118</guid>
		<description>I don't think you understood me Josh. I was saying, make the page look like how you want for people without JavaScript, then for those with JavaScript, modify what's there to look like how you want it to look for those with JavaScript. By doing it that way, noscript is not needed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think you understood me Josh. I was saying, make the page look like how you want for people without JavaScript, then for those with JavaScript, modify what&#8217;s there to look like how you want it to look for those with JavaScript. By doing it that way, noscript is not needed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josh</title>
		<link>http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer#comment-7104</link>
		<dc:creator>josh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:41:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hddkillers.com/?p=23#comment-7104</guid>
		<description>"#
 - Here I also agree, itâ€™s easy enough to manipulate the existing content with JavaScript if you want it to be displayed in a different way or (for some reason) not displayed at all, therefore there is no need for .
#"

I disagree. The reason to use  is so that browsers without javascript (enabled) can render the content you would want to be rendered only in that scenario.
I don't understand how otherwise manipulating the  content with javascript is going to work if javascript itself doesn't.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;#<br />
 - Here I also agree, itâ€™s easy enough to manipulate the existing content with JavaScript if you want it to be displayed in a different way or (for some reason) not displayed at all, therefore there is no need for .<br />
#&#8221;</p>
<p>I disagree. The reason to use  is so that browsers without javascript (enabled) can render the content you would want to be rendered only in that scenario.<br />
I don&#8217;t understand how otherwise manipulating the  content with javascript is going to work if javascript itself doesn&#8217;t.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert F.</title>
		<link>http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer#comment-102</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert F.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2005 04:32:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hddkillers.com/?p=23#comment-102</guid>
		<description>Hey, you can put "Till" on us. It's from Middle English, us Americans brought it with us from England. Don't try to excuse your ignorance. :-P

I agree with you David on all your points.  What's wrong with javscript: as a URL protocol? The data: protocol is a standard, but technically it's not linking to a document, as it is the document. Same idea with the javascript: protocol.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey, you can put &#8220;Till&#8221; on us. It&#8217;s from Middle English, us Americans brought it with us from England. Don&#8217;t try to excuse your ignorance. <img src='http://www.hddkillers.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_razz.gif' alt=':-P' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I agree with you David on all your points.  What&#8217;s wrong with javscript: as a URL protocol? The data: protocol is a standard, but technically it&#8217;s not linking to a document, as it is the document. Same idea with the javascript: protocol.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ben Rogers</title>
		<link>http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer#comment-101</link>
		<dc:creator>Ben Rogers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:23:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hddkillers.com/?p=23#comment-101</guid>
		<description>No you didn't, fuzz, it's still absent.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No you didn&#8217;t, fuzz, it&#8217;s still absent.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: lilcrazyfuzzy</title>
		<link>http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer#comment-99</link>
		<dc:creator>lilcrazyfuzzy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:11:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hddkillers.com/?p=23#comment-99</guid>
		<description>&lt;em&gt;Hmm, didnâ€™t know that. The only uses for the word till that I knew were to mean cash register and ploughing.&lt;/em&gt;
must be an american thing :p

btw, did you see, did you see? i got my gravatar (after a whole week!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em>Hmm, didnâ€™t know that. The only uses for the word till that I knew were to mean cash register and ploughing.</em><br />
must be an american thing :p</p>
<p>btw, did you see, did you see? i got my gravatar (after a whole week!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer#comment-97</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Nov 2005 02:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hddkillers.com/?p=23#comment-97</guid>
		<description>Hmm, didn't know that. The only uses for the word till that I knew were to mean cash register and ploughing.

Yeah, I guess it can be handy to use document.write somtimes, such as using it to write out a bookmarklet link. document.write can be replaced with a bit of DOM though, and yeah It involves some slightly longer code, but it works with application/xhtml+xml.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm, didn&#8217;t know that. The only uses for the word till that I knew were to mean cash register and ploughing.</p>
<p>Yeah, I guess it can be handy to use document.write somtimes, such as using it to write out a bookmarklet link. document.write can be replaced with a bit of DOM though, and yeah It involves some slightly longer code, but it works with application/xhtml+xml.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Fenocchi</title>
		<link>http://www.hddkillers.com/2005/11/six-javascript-features-we-may-or-may-not-need-any-longer#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Fenocchi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:49:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hddkillers.com/?p=23#comment-96</guid>
		<description>I think that document.write() and  still have some practical uses, but 99% of the time they are a bad choice. Other than that, I agree with your agree/disagree statements.

Oh yeah, and it's proper to use "till" instead of "'til." From http://www.answers.com/till ...

&lt;blockquote cite="http://www.answers.com/till"&gt;
USAGE NOTE   Till and until are generally interchangeable in both writing and speech, though as the first word in a sentence until is usually preferred: Until you get that paper written, don't even think about going to the movies.â€¢Till is actually the older word, with until having been formed by the addition to it of the prefix unâ€“, meaning â€œup to.â€ In the 18th century the spelling 'till became fashionable, as if till were a shortened form of until. Although 'till is now nonstandard, 'til is sometimes used in this way and is considered acceptable, though it is etymologically incorrect.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that document.write() and  still have some practical uses, but 99% of the time they are a bad choice. Other than that, I agree with your agree/disagree statements.</p>
<p>Oh yeah, and it&#8217;s proper to use &#8220;till&#8221; instead of &#8220;&#8217;til.&#8221; From <a href="http://www.answers.com/till" rel="nofollow">http://www.answers.com/till</a> &#8230;</p>
<blockquote cite="http://www.answers.com/till"><p>
USAGE NOTE   Till and until are generally interchangeable in both writing and speech, though as the first word in a sentence until is usually preferred: Until you get that paper written, don&#8217;t even think about going to the movies.â€¢Till is actually the older word, with until having been formed by the addition to it of the prefix unâ€“, meaning â€œup to.â€ In the 18th century the spelling &#8217;till became fashionable, as if till were a shortened form of until. Although &#8217;till is now nonstandard, &#8217;til is sometimes used in this way and is considered acceptable, though it is etymologically incorrect.
</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
