5 ms·

I would argue that ATOM is better: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/Rss20AndAtom10Compared#samples http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/Rss20AndAtom10Compar

by robobro 10y ago

I would argue that ATOM is better: http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/Rss20AndAtom10Compared#samples http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/Rss20AndAtom10Compared#... Sure, they're both automatically generated / automatically read, but ATOM seems like an improvement syntactically ... http://nullprogram.com/blog/2013/09/23/ http://nullprogram.com/blog/2013/09/23/

onli 10y ago
I worked on both Atom and RSS Feeds for blogging engines. Frankly, Atom had for me no real advantage. RSS is easy to generate, and it is supported properly by so many clients that Atom can be comfortably ignored. Stuff like the guid not being a guid work in practice just fine.
- redwall_hp 10y ago
  To be honest, they're basically interchangeable. Most parsing libraries will handle both, and it's entirely down to preference.
  - narrowrail 10y ago
    From my [not extensive] research, ATOM open source libraries have better support for authenticated feeds.
  - firasd 10y ago
    But working on a blogging engine (producing feeds) or saying parsing libraries will handle it is just externalizing the problems with RSS to the consumers. That's where the real pain point is: understanding the content of an RSS feed, especially when thousands of feeds can have a multitude of different quirks.
- talideon 10y ago
  The problem isn't generation, but consumption. If you're consuming feeds, Atom is significantly better than RSS because it's better specified.
gkya 10y ago
Well they are both the same as a medium, that is apart from technical benefits to the producer and the consumer programmes, they are both easy, easy to implement, easy to publish, easy to (un)?subscribe and free of third-party involvement.