7 ms·

I will go against the grain here and say that this is good. RSS is not a core function of a web browser and as such should be handled by an extension, if at all

I will go against the grain here and say that this is good. RSS is not a core function of a web browser and as such should be handled by an extension, if at all.

chapium 8y ago
Agreed. Remove the bloat.
throwslack 8y ago
The core function of a web browser shouldn't be to pretty print JSON either, yet they recently added that feature in core. I understand getting rid of XUL legacy cruft, but removing the RSS renderer/reader entirely with no plan other than "extensions will fix it" just leaves a bad taste.
- pvorb 8y ago
  All browsers have been pretty-printing XML for a while. Adding JSON was long overdue. It might not be a core functionality of a browser, but all major browser vendors now accept that browsers are also development tools.
- gpm 8y ago
  One of the core features of web browsers is web development tools. Pretty printing JSON is a extremely useful and versatile web development tool, and as such I consider it in scope.
  - maxxxxx 8y ago
    The core feature of a browser is browsing. Web dev tools are secondary. To a regular user who is not dev the removal of RSS is a loss. JSON is secondary. Firefox would make a mistake if they prioritized Dev tools over end user features.
    - tylerhou 8y ago
      How many regular users actually use RSS? To be honest, I don't think most devs use RSS, much less non-devs. Mozilla has a finite budget to allocate to features. Maybe they looked at usage rates and decided that RSS just wasn't an important feature, or other features were more important.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
        How many regular users use JSON or other development tools?
        tylerhou 8y ago
        Very few, but I bet there's an order of magnitude more developers who regularly view JSON in a browser than RSS in a browser (without extensions).
  - jarfil 8y ago
    There is a separate "Firefox Developer Edition" for that.
    - gpm 8y ago
      I'm strongly in favor of anything that makes it easier for non developers to "see behind the scenes" into computers, so while developer edition is nice and all I don't consider it a strong reason not to include development tools in regular firefox.
  - guelo 8y ago
    Believe it or not JSON is not the only data transfer format used on the web. Some web services even spit out XML, crazy I know.
rusk 8y ago
Indeed if you want to access RSS through your web browser it makes sense to do so through a hosted service similar to how google groups does for usenet
notafraudster 8y ago
I think browsers should render any content type in a way that provides functionality for a user; for example, I think it would be great if when loading a JSON file, I could toggle between the raw data provided and a pretty-printed, syntax-highlighted, collapsable tree view of the JSON file. I think it would be great if when loading an MD file, I could toggle between the raw markdown and a rendered version. Certainly when I load an image or audio file outside a webpage, my browser decodes renders the content usefully. Given these cases, why would XML files be any different?
- fireattack 8y ago
  JSON parser is indeed a very nice feature of Firefox I wish Chrome could come up with something similar.
  - apetresc 8y ago
    There's a ton of extensions that do exactly that.
    - RaleyField 8y ago
      And I don't need the hassle to figure out who stands behind them and if I can trust them. Most of the time there isn't any good reason to trust them anyway.
    - fireattack 8y ago
      Oh thanks! I don't even know that's possible with extensions. Just installed one, works like a charm :D
- htor 8y ago
  yes to all this, but then when do you stop? how many file types should be supported by a browser? i'm sure some people would like it that the browser could edit spreadsheets too. there are so many different use cases.
  - 8y ago
jscholes 8y ago
I only disagree with this for one reason: many websites have RSS feeds, but don't link to them in an obvious place. Clicking "Subscribe to This Page…" in the Bookmarks menu and get the feed URL is something I do quite a lot. Also good for accessibility, RSS feeds are usually less cluttered than web pages.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  I build websites for a living, and providing an RSS feed for my clients (from their perspective) is incredibly low priority. Why? Because their clients don't ask for them. RSS feeds are used for social media content sharing, but not for regular users. Also, most blog content these days (for my clients) tends to be pretty canned stuff only used for SEO and content-bling to make some site look important. I think sites that are serious about followers may use RSS, but not the majority of sites out there. Which leads us to why RSS support isn't needed anymore and can be relegated to an extension... popularity.
  - type0 8y ago
    > from their perspective) is incredibly low priority. Perspective has nothing to do with it, implementing RSS/Atom is incredibly simple for most use cases when you build websites for a living...
    - RobertRoberts 8y ago
      Yes it does, because they pay the bills. Also, all of the sites I build have RSS built into them automatically because of the framework running them. It's just that no one cares. RSS has never been requested by an end client (owner of the site) in any site I have built in almost 20 years. But, when the social media and marketing people get involved, they used RSS as a way to share content with other 3rd party services. RSS reader in Firefox as an extension is a perfect solution.
gdulli 8y ago
I don't disagree in principle, but Firefox also breaks extensions indiscriminately so the platform is starting to get defined more by the functionality it's lost than gained.
- pitaj 8y ago
  "indiscriminately" uh huh
Animats 8y ago
Now if they're remove Pocket....
adrianmalacoda 8y ago
Given Pocket's inclusion in Firefox, it seems that Mozilla does indeed consider a "news feed" to be a "core function" of their browser.
- SilasX 8y ago
  And given Looking Glass's required install, it seems they consider "marketing TV shows" and "cryptic messages that look like security compromises" to be a core function too.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
FrozenVoid 8y ago
In principle that would be correct if Firefox was a lean browser. But it includes hundreds of integrated components/services no one asked for, most far less useful and less popular than RSS.

I will go against the grain here and say that this is good. RSS is not a core function of a web browser and as such should be handled by an extension, if at all.

chapium 8y ago

Agreed. Remove the bloat.

throwslack 8y ago

The core function of a web browser shouldn't be to pretty print JSON either, yet they recently added that feature in core. I understand getting rid of XUL legacy cruft, but removing the RSS renderer/reader entirely with no plan other than "extensions will fix it" just leaves a bad taste.

pvorb 8y ago
All browsers have been pretty-printing XML for a while. Adding JSON was long overdue. It might not be a core functionality of a browser, but all major browser vendors now accept that browsers are also development tools.
gpm 8y ago
One of the core features of web browsers is web development tools. Pretty printing JSON is a extremely useful and versatile web development tool, and as such I consider it in scope.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  The core feature of a browser is browsing. Web dev tools are secondary. To a regular user who is not dev the removal of RSS is a loss. JSON is secondary. Firefox would make a mistake if they prioritized Dev tools over end user features.
  - tylerhou 8y ago
    How many regular users actually use RSS? To be honest, I don't think most devs use RSS, much less non-devs. Mozilla has a finite budget to allocate to features. Maybe they looked at usage rates and decided that RSS just wasn't an important feature, or other features were more important.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
      How many regular users use JSON or other development tools?
      - tylerhou 8y ago
        Very few, but I bet there's an order of magnitude more developers who regularly view JSON in a browser than RSS in a browser (without extensions).
- jarfil 8y ago
  There is a separate "Firefox Developer Edition" for that.
  - gpm 8y ago
    I'm strongly in favor of anything that makes it easier for non developers to "see behind the scenes" into computers, so while developer edition is nice and all I don't consider it a strong reason not to include development tools in regular firefox.
- guelo 8y ago
  Believe it or not JSON is not the only data transfer format used on the web. Some web services even spit out XML, crazy I know.

rusk 8y ago

Indeed if you want to access RSS through your web browser it makes sense to do so through a hosted service similar to how google groups does for usenet

notafraudster 8y ago

I think browsers should render any content type in a way that provides functionality for a user; for example, I think it would be great if when loading a JSON file, I could toggle between the raw data provided and a pretty-printed, syntax-highlighted, collapsable tree view of the JSON file. I think it would be great if when loading an MD file, I could toggle between the raw markdown and a rendered version. Certainly when I load an image or audio file outside a webpage, my browser decodes renders the content usefully. Given these cases, why would XML files be any different?

fireattack 8y ago
JSON parser is indeed a very nice feature of Firefox I wish Chrome could come up with something similar.
- apetresc 8y ago
  There's a ton of extensions that do exactly that.
  - RaleyField 8y ago
    And I don't need the hassle to figure out who stands behind them and if I can trust them. Most of the time there isn't any good reason to trust them anyway.
  - fireattack 8y ago
    Oh thanks! I don't even know that's possible with extensions. Just installed one, works like a charm :D
htor 8y ago
yes to all this, but then when do you stop? how many file types should be supported by a browser? i'm sure some people would like it that the browser could edit spreadsheets too. there are so many different use cases.
- 8y ago

jscholes 8y ago

I only disagree with this for one reason: many websites have RSS feeds, but don't link to them in an obvious place. Clicking "Subscribe to This Page…" in the Bookmarks menu and get the feed URL is something I do quite a lot. Also good for accessibility, RSS feeds are usually less cluttered than web pages.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
I build websites for a living, and providing an RSS feed for my clients (from their perspective) is incredibly low priority. Why? Because their clients don't ask for them. RSS feeds are used for social media content sharing, but not for regular users. Also, most blog content these days (for my clients) tends to be pretty canned stuff only used for SEO and content-bling to make some site look important. I think sites that are serious about followers may use RSS, but not the majority of sites out there. Which leads us to why RSS support isn't needed anymore and can be relegated to an extension... popularity.
- type0 8y ago
  > from their perspective) is incredibly low priority. Perspective has nothing to do with it, implementing RSS/Atom is incredibly simple for most use cases when you build websites for a living...
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    Yes it does, because they pay the bills. Also, all of the sites I build have RSS built into them automatically because of the framework running them. It's just that no one cares. RSS has never been requested by an end client (owner of the site) in any site I have built in almost 20 years. But, when the social media and marketing people get involved, they used RSS as a way to share content with other 3rd party services. RSS reader in Firefox as an extension is a perfect solution.

gdulli 8y ago

I don't disagree in principle, but Firefox also breaks extensions indiscriminately so the platform is starting to get defined more by the functionality it's lost than gained.

pitaj 8y ago
"indiscriminately" uh huh

Animats 8y ago

Now if they're remove Pocket....

adrianmalacoda 8y ago

Given Pocket's inclusion in Firefox, it seems that Mozilla does indeed consider a "news feed" to be a "core function" of their browser.

SilasX 8y ago
And given Looking Glass's required install, it seems they consider "marketing TV shows" and "cryptic messages that look like security compromises" to be a core function too.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

FrozenVoid 8y ago

In principle that would be correct if Firefox was a lean browser. But it includes hundreds of integrated components/services no one asked for, most far less useful and less popular than RSS.