<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: AntiXSS updated</title>
	<link>http://www.gdssecurity.com/l/b/2008/06/02/antixss-updated/</link>
	<description>Gotham Digital Science Security Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:42:26 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Ivan Ristić</title>
		<link>http://www.gdssecurity.com/l/b/2008/06/02/antixss-updated/#comment-164</link>
		<dc:creator>Ivan Ristić</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Sep 2008 10:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.gdssecurity.com/l/b/2008/06/02/antixss-updated/#comment-164</guid>
		<description>I don't think it would be counter-productive at all (to rename the methods). I think the majority of the Java users will not have seen the Microsoft's implementation so it wouldn't matter to them. Personally, I think conforming to the standards of the Java platform is more important than preserving the identical-case method names with the original library. I will admit that I am a bit strange that way, but I would struggle with using a library whose methods' names are in UpperCamelCase.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think it would be counter-productive at all (to rename the methods). I think the majority of the Java users will not have seen the Microsoft&#8217;s implementation so it wouldn&#8217;t matter to them. Personally, I think conforming to the standards of the Java platform is more important than preserving the identical-case method names with the original library. I will admit that I am a bit strange that way, but I would struggle with using a library whose methods&#8217; names are in UpperCamelCase.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
