<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Scobleizer - Latest Comments in FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.disqus.com/</link><description>Tech enthusiast, video blogger, media innovator, fanatical about startups at Rackspace, home of fanatical support for Internet entrepreneurs.</description><atom:link href="https://scobleizer.disqus.com/feedburner_and_lifehacker_debate_full_or_partial_feeds/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:29:02 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690054</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Scoble; Maybe Ted isn't seeing full feeds bacause, as you say his reader isn't setup right, then again maybe it's because the feed he's trying to read isn't publishing full feeds like you. But thats exactly the issue with the current state of web accessibility...maybe the site has marked it up to be accessible, maybe it hasn't.&lt;br&gt;But the difference is that with partial rss problem there's only the single hurdle to putting out the same information stream to everyone whereas with html markup theres just so many points of failure and so much more reliance on the producer of the site/info.&lt;br&gt;Just a thought.&lt;br&gt;Dave&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dave the Lifekludger</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:29:02 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690055</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I do *not* subscribe to partial feeds. Sites that offer them disappear off my radar. If sites really want to offer partial feeds, offer at least a choice. IMHO offering only partial feeds is a stupid as banning firefox users with the ad block extension.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Internet is full of stupid initiatives, Universal Music's forced opt-in of drm-free music is another example. If people want to shoot themselves in the foot it's fine by me.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">dc crowley</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:45:30 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690056</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Dileepa: my feeds ARE full text feeds. Are you not seeing full text?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Robert Scoble</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:20:36 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690057</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Those who don't use full feeds should be tarred, feathered, and have the video put up on YouTube. I can't stand it! It's arrogant, presumptious, unhelpful, and I absolutely--on mere principle--refuse to ever click further.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Seth E</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:47:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690058</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Remind me again... why are your feeds full feeds?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dileepa</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:30:26 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690053</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Ted: maybe you don't have it set up right. I definitely see full feeds in mine.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Robert Scoble</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:18:07 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690059</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I prefer full feeds too.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">David</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:42:32 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690060</link><description>&lt;p&gt;ummm, then why don't I see full feeds through Google reader ?&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Ted</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 10:26:14 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FeedBurner and Lifehacker debate full or partial feeds</title><link>http://scobleizer.com/2007/09/12/feedburner-and-lifehacker-debate-full-or-partial-feeds/#comment-9690061</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Full feeds stand to be better for accessibility and I suspect will be moreso in future.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Dave the Lifekludger</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:19:44 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>