<?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: Opera Web Standards Curriculum</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scarfoo.com/archives/64/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scarfoo.com/archives/64</link>
	<description>Comfy Web Development With Standards in Mind</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:27:10 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Damjan Mozetič</title>
		<link>http://scarfoo.com/archives/64/comment-page-1#comment-139</link>
		<dc:creator>Damjan Mozetič</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:09:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scarfoo.com/?p=64#comment-139</guid>
		<description>The fact is that in my daily job, I'd never get to use the target tag if it wasn't for the clients *asking* for it. I am wondering, why is that tag still around anyway... it only duplicates the browser interface's functionality, which is a bad thing IMO.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The fact is that in my daily job, I&#8217;d never get to use the target tag if it wasn&#8217;t for the clients *asking* for it. I am wondering, why is that tag still around anyway&#8230; it only duplicates the browser interface&#8217;s functionality, which is a bad thing IMO.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dusan Smolnikar</title>
		<link>http://scarfoo.com/archives/64/comment-page-1#comment-137</link>
		<dc:creator>Dusan Smolnikar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://scarfoo.com/?p=64#comment-137</guid>
		<description>Just skimming trough the article, I stumbled upon this:
&lt;blockquote&gt;There are strict and transitional flavours of both HTML and XHTML. Strict in this case means that the doctypes allow less presentational markup than the transitional doctype does. The presentational markup that isn’t allowed shouldn’t really be there anyway, since you should use HTML to define the structure and meaning of your documents, and CSS to determine how they are presented.

And I'm going "Yeah right, show me a css alternative to the target tag" :) As much as you and me and any other &lt;i&gt;trained&lt;/i&gt; internet user hate when designers tell us where to open the links, I think it's even more confusing to the normal users when they lose the website they were reading.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just skimming trough the article, I stumbled upon this:</p>
<blockquote><p>There are strict and transitional flavours of both HTML and XHTML. Strict in this case means that the doctypes allow less presentational markup than the transitional doctype does. The presentational markup that isn’t allowed shouldn’t really be there anyway, since you should use HTML to define the structure and meaning of your documents, and CSS to determine how they are presented.</p>
<p>And I&#8217;m going &#8220;Yeah right, show me a css alternative to the target tag&#8221; <img src='http://scarfoo.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> As much as you and me and any other <i>trained</i> internet user hate when designers tell us where to open the links, I think it&#8217;s even more confusing to the normal users when they lose the website they were reading.</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
