<?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: The Challenge Of Intuitive WYSIWYG HTML</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.symphonious.net/2006/05/12/the-challenge-of-intuitive-wysiwyg-html/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.symphonious.net/2006/05/12/the-challenge-of-intuitive-wysiwyg-html/</link>
	<description>Living in a state of accord.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:47:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Symphonious &#187; The Invisible Formatting Tag Problem</title>
		<link>http://www.symphonious.net/2006/05/12/the-challenge-of-intuitive-wysiwyg-html/#comment-20107</link>
		<dc:creator>Symphonious &#187; The Invisible Formatting Tag Problem</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Jun 2006 02:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.symphonious.net/2006/05/12/the-challenge-of-intuitive-wysiwyg-html/#comment-20107</guid>
		<description>[...] In fact, the Outlook example is a perfect showcase of this - hyperlinks work differently to bold, italic and underline. This actually shows clearly that the problem isn&#39;t because of an invisible formatting tag, otherwise the same problem would occur with the &#60;/b&#62; tag, the &#60;/i&#62; tag etc. The hyperlink behavior is actually a specific choice made by the Outlook team3. I mentioned in my first response one possible reason the Outlook team might have decided to do this: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In fact, the Outlook example is a perfect showcase of this - hyperlinks work differently to bold, italic and underline. This actually shows clearly that the problem isn&#39;t because of an invisible formatting tag, otherwise the same problem would occur with the &#60;/b&#62; tag, the &#60;/i&#62; tag etc. The hyperlink behavior is actually a specific choice made by the Outlook team3. I mentioned in my first response one possible reason the Outlook team might have decided to do this: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Symphonious &#187; Content Authoring vs Site Design</title>
		<link>http://www.symphonious.net/2006/05/12/the-challenge-of-intuitive-wysiwyg-html/#comment-19756</link>
		<dc:creator>Symphonious &#187; Content Authoring vs Site Design</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 12:23:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.symphonious.net/2006/05/12/the-challenge-of-intuitive-wysiwyg-html/#comment-19756</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#39;ve come to realize that there is a world of difference between requirements for content authoring and requirements for site design. This really becomes clear when I look at the different view points between myself (The Challenge Of Intuitive WYSIWYG HTML) and Alastair (This Is What You See, This Is What You Get and now Responding to Adrian) regarding WYSIWYG editing. (Snide comment: see, I can use cite and emphasis too). [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I&#39;ve come to realize that there is a world of difference between requirements for content authoring and requirements for site design. This really becomes clear when I look at the different view points between myself (The Challenge Of Intuitive WYSIWYG HTML) and Alastair (This Is What You See, This Is What You Get and now Responding to Adrian) regarding WYSIWYG editing. (Snide comment: see, I can use cite and emphasis too). [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
