<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Wanted:  A Few Good Editors</title>
	<link>http://inkblots.markwoodman.com/2005/10/10/wanted-a-few-good-editors/</link>
	<description>Completely Messing the Point - Notes on cool tech, including RSS and Atom. May contain humor.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:59:37 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Rob</title>
		<link>http://inkblots.markwoodman.com/2005/10/10/wanted-a-few-good-editors/#comment-75</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:24:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://inkblots.markwoodman.com/2005/10/10/wanted-a-few-good-editors/#comment-75</guid>
					<description>I's starting to play with Google's Reader.  What makes it intriguing is that it once again tries to make a case for web-based applications (web 2.0) that can function just as smoothly and quickly as a client-based application.  Slowness and lack of features has always been my reason for leaning more towards a client-based alternative.  The trade-off, of course, is that I may have feeds saved locally in my client application and have to go through the ordeal of synching my saved items with my office client, home client, etc.

Of course Google's early iteration is stripped down, but the whole AJAX craze is a craze because it appears to promise the migration of all applications to the web.  Despite some initial slowness adding feeds, I am amazed at how quickly Google Reader allows me to dynamically scroll through feed posts.  The question is, can Web 2.0 applications allow for as many features and customization options as their client-based counterparts?

It will be interesting to see if Google's and Sun's partnership will eventually lead to a free web-based Office destroyer...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;s starting to play with Google&#8217;s Reader.  What makes it intriguing is that it once again tries to make a case for web-based applications (web 2.0) that can function just as smoothly and quickly as a client-based application.  Slowness and lack of features has always been my reason for leaning more towards a client-based alternative.  The trade-off, of course, is that I may have feeds saved locally in my client application and have to go through the ordeal of synching my saved items with my office client, home client, etc.</p>
<p>Of course Google&#8217;s early iteration is stripped down, but the whole AJAX craze is a craze because it appears to promise the migration of all applications to the web.  Despite some initial slowness adding feeds, I am amazed at how quickly Google Reader allows me to dynamically scroll through feed posts.  The question is, can Web 2.0 applications allow for as many features and customization options as their client-based counterparts?</p>
<p>It will be interesting to see if Google&#8217;s and Sun&#8217;s partnership will eventually lead to a free web-based Office destroyer&#8230;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
