<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: PolicyPage 0.9.6 released</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.realtors.org/crt/2005/12/09/policypage-096-released/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.realtors.org/crt/2005/12/09/policypage-096-released/</link>
	<description>CRT's communications</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:22:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dark Consultant</title>
		<link>http://blog.realtors.org/crt/2005/12/09/policypage-096-released/#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>Dark Consultant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:35:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.realtors.org/crt/?p=76#comment-153</guid>
		<description>Hi!

Maybe a better approach would be to get (enforce)  MLS's to actually adhere to the NAR's IDX rules in the first place? 

As someone who works with IDX data all over the US, it seems that most days every MLS is out there trying to re-invent the wheel in terms of policies, costs, enforcement, and the (lack of) information they are willing to provide to their dues-paying members.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi!</p>
<p>Maybe a better approach would be to get (enforce)  MLS&#8217;s to actually adhere to the NAR&#8217;s IDX rules in the first place? </p>
<p>As someone who works with IDX data all over the US, it seems that most days every MLS is out there trying to re-invent the wheel in terms of policies, costs, enforcement, and the (lack of) information they are willing to provide to their dues-paying members.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
