<?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: Design, CSS and bandwidth theft UPDATE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/design-css-and-bandwidth-theft-update/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/design-css-and-bandwidth-theft-update</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 15:31:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Boulton</title>
		<link>http://www.markboulton.co.uk/journal/comments/design-css-and-bandwidth-theft-update/comment-page-1#comment-631</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Boulton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2005 19:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://wordpress.markboultondesignhosting.com/2005/06/design-css-and-bandwidth-theft-update/#comment-631</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;humbug&lt;/strong&gt; - Normally I wouldn&#8217;t reply to such a comment but let me set the record straight.
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
That diagram &lt;em&gt;was not&lt;/em&gt; stolen from Bringhurst. If you were even remotely educated in typographic design you would know that Bringhurst was &lt;em&gt;recreating&lt;/em&gt; well established typographic and typesetting theory with that diagram, which is precisely what I was doing. I simply presented it in a way similar to his, which is why Joe rightly pointed out that I should credit him, which I did.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I don&#8217;t take kindly to being called a thief, especially by someone who leaves anon details. I&#8217;d rather have conducted this discussion on email.
&lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>humbug</strong> — Normally I wouldn’t reply to such a comment but let me set the record straight.
</p>
<p>
That diagram <em>was not</em> stolen from Bringhurst. If you were even remotely educated in typographic design you would know that Bringhurst was <em>recreating</em> well established typographic and typesetting theory with that diagram, which is precisely what I was doing. I simply presented it in a way similar to his, which is why Joe rightly pointed out that I should credit him, which I did.
</p>
<p>
I don’t take kindly to being called a thief, especially by someone who leaves anon details. I’d rather have conducted this discussion on email.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
