<?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: How to return from a POST?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.brainonfire.net/2007/07/20/returning-from-post/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.brainonfire.net/2007/07/20/returning-from-post/</link>
	<description>Tim McCormack, distilled.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:28:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim McCormack</title>
		<link>http://www.brainonfire.net/2007/07/20/returning-from-post/#comment-15162</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim McCormack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 19:34:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brainonfire.net/2007/07/20/returning-from-post/#comment-15162</guid>
		<description>@Cairnavon: Yes, Ajax has the advantage of treating the web app as a pure API, whereas traditional synchronous browsing forces the app to behave as both an API and as a user interface.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Cairnavon: Yes, Ajax has the advantage of treating the web app as a pure API, whereas traditional synchronous browsing forces the app to behave as both an API and as a user interface.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cairnarvon</title>
		<link>http://www.brainonfire.net/2007/07/20/returning-from-post/#comment-15160</link>
		<dc:creator>Cairnarvon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jul 2007 03:36:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.brainonfire.net/2007/07/20/returning-from-post/#comment-15160</guid>
		<description>I prefer the referenced #2 approach. If done right, it doesn't have to break anything, and it behaves the way I think most users expect it to.

You could also go all the way with Ajax wankery and deal with the feedback entirely on the client side, of course.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I prefer the referenced #2 approach. If done right, it doesn't have to break anything, and it behaves the way I think most users expect it to.</p>
<p>You could also go all the way with Ajax wankery and deal with the feedback entirely on the client side, of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
