<?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: jQuery, a Love Story.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.12ft.com/2009/11/jquery-a-love-story/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.12ft.com/2009/11/jquery-a-love-story/</link>
	<description>User Centered Design &#38; Interactive Agency</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:57:33 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kelly Diaz</title>
		<link>http://www.12ft.com/2009/11/jquery-a-love-story/comment-page-1/#comment-23</link>
		<dc:creator>Kelly Diaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:48:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.12ft.com/?p=784#comment-23</guid>
		<description>Great perspective on Flash versus jQuery! As a web designer whose forte isn&#039;t ActionScript, I&#039;ve relied on many JavaScript-based functions and libraries to give sites the extra &quot;wow&quot; factor. Like you said, Flash wins for in-depth interactivity, but boy howdy, those little .js files have save my sanity more times than not!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Great perspective on Flash versus jQuery! As a web designer whose forte isn&#8217;t ActionScript, I&#8217;ve relied on many JavaScript-based functions and libraries to give sites the extra &#8220;wow&#8221; factor. Like you said, Flash wins for in-depth interactivity, but boy howdy, those little .js files have save my sanity more times than not!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
