4 ms·
I have trouble seeing how that helps anyone. It’s not like ‘RSS’ is a widespread term the way ‘Word’ or even ‘Mastodon’ are (and even there I’d argue it’s worth
by F3nd0 2mo ago
I have trouble seeing how that helps anyone. It’s not like ‘RSS’ is a widespread term the way ‘Word’ or even ‘Mastodon’ are (and even there I’d argue it’s worthwhile to use technically more correct terms). Why not just use ‘news feed’ as the general term? If you don’t care about the protocol in the first place, that’s far more descriptive and correct, no?
- dewey 2mo agoBecause if you say "News feed" people are thinking Facebook or Twitter feed. RSS is widely known as it was already integrated in browsers before as a "RSS" button if the site advertised that in the html head.
- F3nd0 2mo agoI should think that’s a pretty niche memory among people who browse the internet nowadays, but then I only have anecdotal evidence, so I could be underestimating it. Even so, I think conflating a general type with a format specification is not a good idea overall.
- ymolodtsov 2mo agoRSS is the only widespread enough name for this thing. Where you're correct is that it's silly to argue about the name of the format used by approximately three people. I'm not too serious here but even many news media publications are just dropping it, or separate into dozens of unconnected feeds.
- jjordan 2mo agoIf you think that's esoteric, there's also a JSON feed standard. I have found one thus far while building out an RSS directory of over 1,000 entries.
- ymolodtsov 2mo agoWhat's esoteric is not the format specifically but whether people are knowingly using it. RSS lost when browsers dropped its native support. Would be interesting to see a world where Chrome/Safari still had clients for it.