<?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: Ajax JavaScript Libraries</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nico.berlee.nl/ajax-javascript-libraries/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nico.berlee.nl/ajax-javascript-libraries/</link>
	<description>a digital portfolio</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 17:23:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: My improved website response with&#160;Ajax &#124; WordPress</title>
		<link>http://nico.berlee.nl/ajax-javascript-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-22</link>
		<dc:creator>My improved website response with&#160;Ajax &#124; WordPress</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:38:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nico.berlee.nl/ajax-javascriptlibraries/#comment-22</guid>
		<description>[...] Needles to say, itÂ saves a lot of bandwidth. My average page sizeÂ did goÂ from 15kb to 5kb (uncompressed, with ZLib compression, often not more than 1kb!). This has a lot of advantages, becauseÂ it uses less processing andÂ parsing time on the server and less download and render time on the client, and it looks nicer towards the user because the page doesn&#8217;t get refreshed.Â IÂ The only overhead is the 4kb JavaScript, which is nothing compared to someÂ other ajax JavaScript&#160;libraries. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Needles to say, itÂ saves a lot of bandwidth. My average page sizeÂ did goÂ from 15kb to 5kb (uncompressed, with ZLib compression, often not more than 1kb!). This has a lot of advantages, becauseÂ it uses less processing andÂ parsing time on the server and less download and render time on the client, and it looks nicer towards the user because the page doesn&#8217;t get refreshed.Â IÂ The only overhead is the 4kb JavaScript, which is nothing compared to someÂ other ajax JavaScript&nbsp;libraries. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nico.Berlee.nl &#38;#187; Archives &#38;#187; AjaxBerlee WordPress theme released</title>
		<link>http://nico.berlee.nl/ajax-javascript-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-6</link>
		<dc:creator>Nico.Berlee.nl &#38;#187; Archives &#38;#187; AjaxBerlee WordPress theme released</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 2006 01:29:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nico.berlee.nl/ajax-javascriptlibraries/#comment-6</guid>
		<description>[...] All driven by my own build very light weighted framework which I will release hopefully later this week separately with a howto to adapt it to your own WordPress theme. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] All driven by my own build very light weighted framework which I will release hopefully later this week separately with a howto to adapt it to your own WordPress theme. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nico.Berlee.nl &#38;#187; Archives &#38;#187; My improved website response with Ajax</title>
		<link>http://nico.berlee.nl/ajax-javascript-libraries/comment-page-1/#comment-5</link>
		<dc:creator>Nico.Berlee.nl &#38;#187; Archives &#38;#187; My improved website response with Ajax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:12:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nico.berlee.nl/ajax-javascriptlibraries/#comment-5</guid>
		<description>[...] Needles to say, it&nbsp;saves a lot of bandwidth. My average page size&nbsp;did go&nbsp;from 15kb to 5kb (uncompressed, with ZLib compression, often not more than 1kb!). This has a lot of advantages, because&nbsp;it uses less processing and&nbsp;parsing time on the server and less download time and render&nbsp;on the client, and it looks nicer towards the user because the page doesn&#8217;t get refreshed.&nbsp;I&nbsp;The only overhead is the 4kb JavaScript, which is nothing compared to some&nbsp;other ajax JavaScript libraries. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Needles to say, it&#38;nbsp;saves a lot of bandwidth. My average page size&#38;nbsp;did go&#38;nbsp;from 15kb to 5kb (uncompressed, with ZLib compression, often not more than 1kb!). This has a lot of advantages, because&#38;nbsp;it uses less processing and&#38;nbsp;parsing time on the server and less download time and render&#38;nbsp;on the client, and it looks nicer towards the user because the page doesn&#38;#8217;t get refreshed.&#38;nbsp;I&#38;nbsp;The only overhead is the 4kb JavaScript, which is nothing compared to some&#38;nbsp;other ajax JavaScript libraries. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
