<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Elliott Back's Blog - Latest Comments in Google Caja Pwns Facebook&amp;#8217;s FBJS &amp;mdash; Elliott C. Back</title><link>http://elliottbacksblog.disqus.com/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:37:56 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Google Caja Pwns Facebook&amp;#8217;s FBJS &amp;mdash; Elliott C. Back</title><link>http://elliottback.com/wp/google-caja-pwns-facebooks-fbjs/#comment-3196211</link><description>I don't know why I'm replying so long afterwards when it won't get read :), but I believe the awesome thing about Caja as compared to FBJS is that Caja will let you write ordinary JavaScript as opposed to JavaScript that only works in Facebook (or OpenSocial or whatever).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Facebook effectively imposes some of the cost of maintaining security on you. Most non-FBJS JavaScript libraries won't work there.  (I say this having developed a Facebook app.)  It's not exactly the DOM you know (although you won't have too much trouble adjusting).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Conversely, Caja not only fails to stand in your way; it makes it easier to port Web apps you wrote into the Google world.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Randall</dc:creator><pubDate>Sat, 02 Feb 2008 12:37:56 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Google Caja Pwns Facebook&amp;#8217;s FBJS &amp;mdash; Elliott C. Back</title><link>http://elliottback.com/wp/google-caja-pwns-facebooks-fbjs/#comment-3196210</link><description>Any insights to back that up?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">tamlyn</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:33:43 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>