<?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: Adobe Out In the Open with Alfresco</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bigmenoncontent.com/2008/06/20/adobe-out-in-the-open-with-alfresco/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bigmenoncontent.com/2008/06/20/adobe-out-in-the-open-with-alfresco/</link>
	<description>Opinions and discussions on content management by two of the biggest guys in the business.(measured by weight not volume)</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 May 2012 04:05:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee Dallas</title>
		<link>http://bigmenoncontent.com/2008/06/20/adobe-out-in-the-open-with-alfresco/#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lee Dallas]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 12:55:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bmoc.wordpress.com/?p=104#comment-118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree. Without the CMS, LiveCycle was always an incomplete picture. I&#039;m curious as to why they waited until now to take this on apart from wanting to play nicely with everyone and not over commit to a single CMS Vendor. I suppose Alfresco is the least offensive choice to Adobe&#039;s other partners because they can embed it, brand it and treat it as an open source adoption instead of a true vendor/oem relationship. .]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. Without the CMS, LiveCycle was always an incomplete picture. I&#8217;m curious as to why they waited until now to take this on apart from wanting to play nicely with everyone and not over commit to a single CMS Vendor. I suppose Alfresco is the least offensive choice to Adobe&#8217;s other partners because they can embed it, brand it and treat it as an open source adoption instead of a true vendor/oem relationship. .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pie</title>
		<link>http://bigmenoncontent.com/2008/06/20/adobe-out-in-the-open-with-alfresco/#comment-117</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pie]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:45:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bmoc.wordpress.com/?p=104#comment-117</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Good post.  From the Adobe perspective, it potentially makes their LiveCycle product a solid stand-alone solution.  They&#039;ve always claimed that, but to be fair, without an ECM system to dump everything into, it limited their scale.  For Alfresco, great exposure to those that always looked at them crossways for being new and open source.

Oh, and thanks for the standards plug.

-Pie]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good post.  From the Adobe perspective, it potentially makes their LiveCycle product a solid stand-alone solution.  They&#8217;ve always claimed that, but to be fair, without an ECM system to dump everything into, it limited their scale.  For Alfresco, great exposure to those that always looked at them crossways for being new and open source.</p>
<p>Oh, and thanks for the standards plug.</p>
<p>-Pie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

