<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Well Known Vs. Rational Vector Delivery &#8211; Part 3</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mapwrecker.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/well-known-vs-rational-vector-delivery-part-3/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mapwrecker.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/well-known-vs-rational-vector-delivery-part-3/</link>
	<description>AJAX, Maps, .NET, and Destruction</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 23:24:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bill Thorp</title>
		<link>http://mapwrecker.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/well-known-vs-rational-vector-delivery-part-3/#comment-365</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Thorp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:12:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mapwrecker.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-365</guid>
		<description>NetTopologySuite has a Topology Preserving Simplifier but its implementation conflicted with some of my ideas on preserving data between zoom levels.  If you used &quot;dumb&quot; tile sets like MS Research did, this wouldn&#039;t be an issue.  I&#039;ll dig that code up and see if I can&#039;t put something decent together worth posting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>NetTopologySuite has a Topology Preserving Simplifier but its implementation conflicted with some of my ideas on preserving data between zoom levels.  If you used &#8220;dumb&#8221; tile sets like MS Research did, this wouldn&#8217;t be an issue.  I&#8217;ll dig that code up and see if I can&#8217;t put something decent together worth posting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Fee</title>
		<link>http://mapwrecker.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/well-known-vs-rational-vector-delivery-part-3/#comment-363</link>
		<dc:creator>James Fee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:28:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mapwrecker.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-363</guid>
		<description>It works well but I agree the demo leaves much to be desired.  Maybe I missed a post, but what did you discover about the topology, or is it just an assume issue at this point?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It works well but I agree the demo leaves much to be desired.  Maybe I missed a post, but what did you discover about the topology, or is it just an assume issue at this point?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sean Gillies</title>
		<link>http://mapwrecker.wordpress.com/2008/02/01/well-known-vs-rational-vector-delivery-part-3/#comment-362</link>
		<dc:creator>Sean Gillies</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:36:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mapwrecker.wordpress.com/?p=45#comment-362</guid>
		<description>Can you blame them? It was a good idea.

I think I&#039;m going to stake a claim on that triangle between Utah and Nevada.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you blame them? It was a good idea.</p>
<p>I think I&#8217;m going to stake a claim on that triangle between Utah and Nevada.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
