<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Fun with WordPress - Latest Comments in Replacing WordPress features</title><link>http://funwithwordpress.disqus.com/</link><description></description><atom:link href="https://funwithwordpress.disqus.com/replacing_wordpress_features/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:40:19 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Replacing WordPress features</title><link>http://www.wp-fun.co.uk/2009/03/15/replacing-wordpress-features/#comment-7446970</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, in most cases that is exactly what happens, but that does assume that the core code is capable of being improved in the way you want and that it isn't the availability of the certain code to other plugins that you are improving.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Andrew Rickmann</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:40:19 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Replacing WordPress features</title><link>http://www.wp-fun.co.uk/2009/03/15/replacing-wordpress-features/#comment-7235564</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I'm rather assuming that most people wouldn't use it because it contradicts the core. They might petition the core devs to include it, but I don't think they would use it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I forgot to mention that thought when I wrote the post.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Andrew Rickmann</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 15 Mar 2009 09:41:18 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>