<?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: XML with Padding</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.nitobi.com/dave/2006/01/27/xml-with-padding/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.nitobi.com/dave/2006/01/27/xml-with-padding/</link>
	<description>let the chips fall where they may</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:19:27 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave Johnson &#187; Blog Archive &#187; XML vs JSON: A Second Sober Look</title>
		<link>http://blogs.nitobi.com/dave/2006/01/27/xml-with-padding/comment-page-1/#comment-9231</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson &#187; Blog Archive &#187; XML vs JSON: A Second Sober Look</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jan 2007 07:03:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ebusiness-apps.com/dave/?p=69#comment-9231</guid>
		<description>[...] The other important points are really in direct response to Dare Obsanjo&#8217;s posts from last week: Browser Security Model and Browser Programming Model. First of all, Dare suggests that one reason for JSON being so popular is due to cross-domain JSON (also called JSONP or JSON with Padding). Ignoring the data format, this pattern is applicable to any kind of data, including XML (XML with Padding is equally valid). There is no reason that Yahoo! could not provide a cross-domain XML API along side a cross-domain JSON API. In fact, I urge people to email everyone they know over at Yahoo! to do so for all their properties such as del.icio.us. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The other important points are really in direct response to Dare Obsanjo&#8217;s posts from last week: Browser Security Model and Browser Programming Model. First of all, Dare suggests that one reason for JSON being so popular is due to cross-domain JSON (also called JSONP or JSON with Padding). Ignoring the data format, this pattern is applicable to any kind of data, including XML (XML with Padding is equally valid). There is no reason that Yahoo! could not provide a cross-domain XML API along side a cross-domain JSON API. In fact, I urge people to email everyone they know over at Yahoo! to do so for all their properties such as del.icio.us. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Johnson &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Cross Domain AJAX with XML</title>
		<link>http://blogs.nitobi.com/dave/2006/01/27/xml-with-padding/comment-page-1/#comment-79</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Johnson &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Cross Domain AJAX with XML</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:27:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.ebusiness-apps.com/dave/?p=69#comment-79</guid>
		<description>[...] On a post I made a few days back I proposed a way to do cross domain AJaX using XML rather than the commonly used JSON. It is essentially an extension of the idea of JSONP (JSON with Padding). Since I generally find myself working with XML more often than JSON I decided to create the equivalent for XML based applications. I have not extensively tested it but did try it on IE6 and FF1.5 on Win2K server. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] On a post I made a few days back I proposed a way to do cross domain AJaX using XML rather than the commonly used JSON. It is essentially an extension of the idea of JSONP (JSON with Padding). Since I generally find myself working with XML more often than JSON I decided to create the equivalent for XML based applications. I have not extensively tested it but did try it on IE6 and FF1.5 on Win2K server. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

