4 ms·
If we get back to RSS, can we at least all stick to Atom 1.0 :) ? It's way stricter, simpler and easier to use, and I never found a parser that was not acceptin
by edhelas 6y ago
If we get back to RSS, can we at least all stick to Atom 1.0 :) ? It's way stricter, simpler and easier to use, and I never found a parser that was not accepting it.
- calibas 6y agoWhen people don't use extra namespaces and everything is consistent, Atom 1.0 works great. And I understand why namespaces exist, but they create this system where each site speaks its own language and that fundamentally undermines the whole point of RSS as this shared way of communicating.
- chrismorgan 6y agoI strongly agree: Atom is technically substantially superior to RSS, and in regular feed readers is supported universally (with fewer issues, e.g. fields like title and description are definitely plain text or HTML, as specified, rather than the RSS approach which leads to clients guessing all sorts of different things so that you can’t safely use things like angle brackets in titles). However, the podcasting industry seems to have ignored Atom, which is stupid. Podcast feeds are exclusively RSS, and from information found, most major clients probably don’t support Atom. But the area is a mess with no good documentation anywhere on what works or doesn’t (and all of the even-halfway-decent content of this sort is from 2006–2010). ———— People colloquially refer to feeds as RSS, even when they’re mostly Atom. Reminds me a bit of the SSL/TLS situation (where I think the name “TLS” is finally more popular than the name “SSL”).
- qznc 6y agoAtom has one annoying characteristic: It requires a self link to be valid. For static website generators it means you configure the domain for no reason except Atom validity.