<?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: Is embedding better than quoting?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mathewingram.com/media/2008/03/17/is-embedding-better-than-quoting/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mathewingram.com/media/2008/03/17/is-embedding-better-than-quoting/</link>
	<description>...watching the intersection of the Web and media</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 17:01:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bill Kinnon</title>
		<link>http://mathewingram.com/media/2008/03/17/is-embedding-better-than-quoting/#comment-14997</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Kinnon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:14:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathewingram.com/media/2008/03/17/is-embedding-better-than-quoting/#comment-14997</guid>
		<description>Doesn't show up in Google Reader either.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doesn&#8217;t show up in Google Reader either.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mindy McAdams</title>
		<link>http://mathewingram.com/media/2008/03/17/is-embedding-better-than-quoting/#comment-14972</link>
		<dc:creator>Mindy McAdams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:54:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathewingram.com/media/2008/03/17/is-embedding-better-than-quoting/#comment-14972</guid>
		<description>I don't get it. I'm all in favor of quoting a bit of the text and linking to the original, but Anil's suggested method doesn't have any advantages over that, as far as I can see. Embedding non-text content (e.g., videos) so that you can actually SEE it -- that makes sense. But using JavaScript to embed text instead of simply pasting it? What's the payoff, for any of the parties involved?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t get it. I&#8217;m all in favor of quoting a bit of the text and linking to the original, but Anil&#8217;s suggested method doesn&#8217;t have any advantages over that, as far as I can see. Embedding non-text content (e.g., videos) so that you can actually SEE it &#8212; that makes sense. But using JavaScript to embed text instead of simply pasting it? What&#8217;s the payoff, for any of the parties involved?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: alan herrell -  the head lemur</title>
		<link>http://mathewingram.com/media/2008/03/17/is-embedding-better-than-quoting/#comment-14928</link>
		<dc:creator>alan herrell -  the head lemur</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Mar 2008 15:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mathewingram.com/media/2008/03/17/is-embedding-better-than-quoting/#comment-14928</guid>
		<description>Only if you want all of your friends to be presented with russian brides, enhancement products, giving the keys to your blog to the first script kiddie with a keyboard. 
http://www.google.com/search?q=javascript+embed+attacks&#38;ie=utf-8&#38;oe=utf-8&#38;aq=t&#38;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&#38;client=firefox-a</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Only if you want all of your friends to be presented with russian brides, enhancement products, giving the keys to your blog to the first script kiddie with a keyboard.<br />
<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=javascript+embed+attacks&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/search?q=javascript+embed+attacks&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

