Slashdot Mirror


Google Finally Moves Toward RSS Standard

declan writes "My News.com colleague Evan Hansen just got his hands on an internal email thread revealing that Google is planning to embrace RSS. Evan's co-authored News.com article quotes from the email (sent to Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt) confirming that Google is rethinking only supporting Atom. Slashdot covered Google's purchase of Pyra Labs and Blogger.com/Blogspot.com last year that made it a fan of the Atom standard. Does this news mean that RSS is now viewed as out of Dave Winer's control? Will RSS and Atom finally converge?"

212 comments

  1. You'd think... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...it'd become an RFC at some point.

    1. Re:You'd think... by joeldg · · Score: 4, Informative

      At this point everything is "proposed" and saying these are not "protocols" and just "vocabularies" and RFC is not appropriate.

      There are some geek-muscles being flexed about in RDF/RSS and people want to maintain control over it (same with FOAF, which I am dealing with often) that is why the Atom guys came up with their own, it is a rewrite they came up with that addressed problems they had been reporting/asking for fixes for (or at least extensions for) for quite a while to no avail.

      Anyway, it is a big pissing contest still, if google jumps in and picks a side, it is game over.

    2. Re:You'd think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      google, the king of search will be able to deside the language of web syndication?

      if it was MS, i could see it, but google? (MS the dictator of 80% of the PCs and a few NPCs)

      MS i could see doing it a step up even, "if you site doesn't support MSRSS, then it won't get index."

    3. Re:You'd think... by ScumericanNazi · · Score: 5, Informative

      RFC stands for Request For Comment.

      An RFC does NOT have to be a standard, it does NOT have to be binding. It CAN be a memo about an idea that you want others to COMMENT on, it CAN be a proposal for which you are REQUESTING others people's COMMENTS.

      Hence, the statement "RFC is not appropriate" is incorrect.

      --
      Sig Heil: Scumerica - Land of the Free* (* 18+, valid papers, health insurance, some restrictions apply)
    4. Re:You'd think... by joeldg · · Score: 5, Informative

      umm..
      I was not going to respond to this.. but just in case someone else might happen to think you are correct for some strange reason.

      If you actually poke around in RFC's you might notice that languages generally don't have them (markup does, but XML which is what RDF/RSS/Atom is built on already has an RFC).
      Poke around http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ and see, you are generally trying to have top-level projects for RFC's, not a subproject.

      RSS is a vocabulary built on XML and therefore would never warrant an RFC.

    5. Re:You'd think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      but he is correct. an RFC is a request for comments. you can put them out for just about anything you want other people's input on and it would be appropriate. common usage is for high-level specs, but RFC still means RFC.

    6. Re:You'd think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTP is a vocabulary build on TCP/IP, and therefore would never warrant a RFC.

      ^moo^

    7. Re:You'd think... by Mattcelt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am not sure from whence your thoughts arose
      that RFCs would really exclude these
      Since RFCs can e'en apply to prose
      and truly be to anything with ease.
      That XML does not have one its own
      shows limitations not with this process
      Rather with those who thought to bring it forth
      Without an RFC, XML's a mess.
      And so to prove that RFCs stand tall
      Do you think this counts as a protocol?

    8. Re:You'd think... by Shadowhawk · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit.

      I understand you're talking about is a vocabulary, but there are ample instance in other areas that counter your conclusion: TCP/UDP (build on IP), HTTP/FTP/telnet/many others (built on TCP/IP).

      Perhaps, most tellingly are RFCs 1942, 1980, 2854, all concerning small parts of HTML (built on, originally, SGML, which could be said to be the mother of XML). I think RSS is unique enough to have it's own RFC.

      --
      My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
    9. Re:You'd think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RSS is a vocabulary built on XML and therefore would never warrant an RFC.

      HTML 2.0 is a vocabulary built on SGML, and it has its own RFC.

  2. FYI (because I didn't know this) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    RSS and Atom files provide news updates from a website in a simple form for your computer. You read these files in a program called an aggregator, which collects news from various websites and provides it to you in a simple form.

    1. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by Patik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand why people want this. It can be out of date for an often-updated site like Slashdot or Fark, and to do anything (i.e., post or read comments) you have to go to the website anyway. I've tried RSS and it's absolutely useless.

    2. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by secolactico · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No it isn't. Not for me at least. It can be somewhat behind the latests posts, but since I'm not the kind that constantly hits refresh on Slashdot nor Fark, it doesn't matter to me.

      The way I use it, I have several sources (a couple of interesting blogs, a book review site, Slashdot, Fark, etc), it then refreshes every 30 minutes, and I can keep track on new posts from a single location. If I see an interesting article on one of the sites, then I go to the actual web page.

      Plus, my RSS reader is inobtrusive enough that noone can see I'm actually monitoring goof-off sites.

      --
      No sig
    3. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by swb · · Score: 4, Funny

      a couple of interesting blogs

      You mean there are a couple of interesting blogs?

    4. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you mind providing a bit more info about the reader you are using, pls? :)

    5. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Informative

      I use a trillian rss plugin. I have a nifty aim skin (that chat program we use at wor). Nobody notices the rss feeds inside my trillian :-)

    6. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by HappyDrgn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It is often useful for sites which would like to carry news but the primary objective of the site is not news. RSS is a standard way to receive the news from multiple sources and parse it using a standard class or function. An example would be an ISP members section. You could provide news stories or even securityfocus.com announcements updated automatically without any additional labor. This is a benefit to both parties in that it adds value to your site while at the same time drives traffic to the news supplier (hopefully for them increasing ad revenue).

    7. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by dindi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Out of sync ? LATE ?

      People! Your aggregator might be out of sync, not the website RSS feed.
      If you update the sources every 5 minutes it is still better than reloading the whole site every 5 minutes (and some sites have update time policies eg every 10 mins)
      The feed most likely comes from the same db and as so it is not outdated.

      Useful ? well if you use a PDA over a GPRS link, it is really cool to have just headlines that consume a few bytes, instead of loading 20 websites with all the ads and gfx (could be megabytes)

      I think it is a cool thing, and even if you do not have a decent aggregator you can sed and grep and awk it to assemble a desired format ...

      just my 1cent opinion :)

    8. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      When I was using Linux, I used KNewsTicker to stay up-to-date on Slashdot headlines. Now with OS X, I have to keep reloading the webpage like everybody else : (

      If anybody knows of a KNewsTicker-like program that can run without KDE, TELL ME!!!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    9. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Groovy! New stuff to try. Thanks for the heads-up :)

    10. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You do realise Slashdot is a weblog don't you?

    11. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      For sites such as slashdot, you get banned if you access the feed more than once an hour. This leads to RSS feeds being slightly pointless for high activity sites with such restrictions.

    12. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by Gherald · · Score: 1

      Sure, but it's just a way to kill time between tech calls, not "interesting".

    13. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by garaged · · Score: 1

      Who needs to see more often slashdot?

      The sites with relevant, fast-changing info dont have such restrictions.

      But my knewsticker dont support per site refresh time :-(

      --
      I'm positive, don't belive me look at my karma
    14. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by edsarkiss · · Score: 1

      useless!?!?!

      it took me 5 minutes to write an RSS-formatted output algo for my site's homebrew blogging function.

      what does this give me? not much. but it allows my friends, family, etc to add my site/blog to their My Yahoo page or RSS newsreader program so they can see my news along side Reuters and AP.

      i'd say that's pretty damn cool, and far from useless.

      --

      SIGUSR1
    15. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by trburkholder · · Score: 1

      If you have to scan slashdot more than once an hour, you may have other problems.

    16. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 1

      I have no idea what KNewsTicker looks like, but if it's like it sounds, I think there's a Konfabulator widget that might do what you want.

      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    17. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by tntguy · · Score: 1, Funny

      Such as having a boring job...

    18. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by monique · · Score: 1

      I recently got interested in this and started using rss2email in a cron job. I get info from slashdot, the washington post, thinkgeek, and a few others I can't recall.

      --
      -monique
    19. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by tntguy · · Score: 0

      I second Konfabulator. It's so well done it feels like it was always part of the system.

    20. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by Sunnan · · Score: 1

      Blogs of friends and relatives are often (not always) interesting.

      It's like saying that there aren't any interesting phone conversations.

      My blog, when I kept one, was probably indecipherable to people who didn't know me. Strangers, while welcome to read if they (however unlikely) were amused, were not the target audience.

    21. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      It makes me wish Konfabulator was Free software (I care about that sort of thing, despite using a Mac)

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    22. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by Feztaa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Firefox has an RSS-reading extension that loads RSS feeds in a sidebar... you get a two-pane sidebar, top pane lists your feeds and the bottom pane lists the headlines on the selected feed. Is that what you mean?

    23. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by dindi · · Score: 1

      yeah well heard of proxies ? :)

      not that i want to advise you set up 200 proxies and poll slashdot every 2 seconds, but if you are a slashdot head you might want let's say 2-3 machines with wget:) or just nphproxy or tinyproxy ..

      or you can always access http://slashdot.org/palm/ that is lightweight .. (It works nice on a pda and does not have refresh restrictions)

      I am sure if you actually subscribe to slashdot they would cancel the RSS hourly limit RIGHT ? RIIIGGHHTTT?? :)

    24. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by M.+Silver · · Score: 1

      It depends on how often you update it.

      I rather like Bloglines. It polls all the sites itself (and its bot is polite and tells you how many subscribers the feed has, so you don't have to worry about losing that information because of a proxy), so I don't have to go round-robin all the time. (It's not really different from setting up an automatic poller, other than I don't feel guily about pinging a site all the time just for one little feed.)

      It's not all that useful for Slashdot, being that I generally want to see comments as much as or more than the article itself, other than new Slashdot articles come up along with everything else so I don't have to poll the front page myself.

      So basically, if you're going to read everything anyway, no, it's not going to substitute for any site's mainpage. But if you pick and choose, like I do, it saves you having to make the rounds to check for new stuff.

      --

      Slashdot's token middle-aged housewife
    25. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Personally, I like having /. headlines in Trillian...

      I don't view the website unless I see a story that looks interesting, and I don't sit here refreshing all day or anything like that either, but it does let me keep relatively up to date.

      I just wish I could get more headlines, I often miss them when I'm asleep.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    26. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      What are you saying, all the posts moderated "interesting" aren't?

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    27. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      Yeah of course they'd cancel the hourly limit for subscribers :)

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    28. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Well, I've now tried Konfabulator, and it seems that "Panther RSS News Feed" does the trick. Thanks!

      Now I just need to figure out which file on /. is the valid RSS file, slashdot.rdf or slashdot.xml...

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    29. Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) by cygnus · · Score: 1

      if you mean WOR the radio station, give Phil Donohue a big friendly slap on the back today. he's a great guy.

      --
      Just raise the taxes on crack.
  3. and in other news.... by hta · · Score: 5, Informative

    the IETF just approved a new WG whose charter says:

    The working group will use experience gained with RSS (variably used as a name by itself and as an acronym for "RDF Site Summary", "Rich Site Summary", or "Really Simple Syndication") as the basis for a standards-track document specifying the model, syntax, and feed format.

    The name of the group is ATOMPUB, so you see where the rest of the experience being considered comes from.

  4. Atom? by Tragek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why did atom even come into existance? Was not RSS already established, or is there some kind of deficiancy in RSS that i'm missing here?

    1. Re:Atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why did atom even come into existance? Was not RSS already established, or is there some kind of deficiancy in RSS that i'm missing here?

      If we didn't keep reinventing the wheel then society would be plagued with unemployed wheel inventors with nothing to keep them busy. It would be a nightmare.

    2. Re:Atom? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Funny

      I didn't realize Douglas Adams was posting from beyond the grave...

    3. Re:Atom? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Informative
      Why did atom even come into existance? Was not RSS already established, or is there some kind of deficiancy in RSS that i'm missing here?

      I think the deficiency with RSS was lack of a consistent implementation. There were too many minor variations within the assorted RSS instances to guarantee compatibility from one to another. Atom had the advantage of being self-consistency.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    4. Re:Atom? by Tragek · · Score: 1

      So, perhaps it is time somone came out of the dark ages, and made it into either a WC3 reccomendation, or an RFC.

    5. Re:Atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, finally I have found a concrete explanation for over half of Sourceforge's contents.

    6. Re:Atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks... I think. That was either a great compliment or an accusation of plagiarism.

    7. Re:Atom? by isorox · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why did atom even come into existance?

      A Proton and an Electron met up and decided to marry

    8. Re:Atom? by costas · · Score: 4, Informative

      As far as I understand things, besides personality issues, the Atom folks were looking for more i18n and for a more-specific standard --there are tags in RSS who are being (mis)used differently by different content-producers exactly because the spec was not very clear from the beginning.

      As an RSS producer/consumer myself, the one thing I've always hated about RSS was the encoding of the description tag: some feeds escape any HTML included in description, some make the whole tag a big CDATA entity, and in any case there is no information provided as to the encoding of the included HTML. One of the side effects has been that if you are parsing RSS, you have to assume that description includes HTML. So, if you happen to have > or < or any other HTML-looking entities within description, your content will be mangled by the RSS-consuming code.

    9. Re:Atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we didn't keep reinventing the wheel we'd never have gotten inflatable rubber tires.

    10. Re:Atom? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      Being xml, couldn't the reader just ignore the parts it isn't designed to use?

    11. Re:Atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this "wheel" thing you speak about? ... oh, I just got this sudden idea of a circular thing with an axle in the center, rolling on the ground... I think I'll go off inventing that now.

    12. Re:Atom? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't those be escaped to < and for any XML conversion anyway? I'm not just being glib, I've written my own XML-RPC implementations... so if the description does include an unescaped , wouldn't that be Wrong?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    13. Re:Atom? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Being xml, couldn't the reader just ignore the parts it isn't designed to use?

      If you're implementing your own parser, sure. The inconsistency gets problematic when you're trying to use software written by someone else to connect to software written by a third person.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    14. Re:Atom? by costas · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right, you have to escape them. But in RSS's description tag, because of tradition (not because of the spec) you have to assume that the content is always escaped HTML. So, if you don't have HTML in your description tag and you put in say the string " big &lt;small", then an otherwise fine RSS parser will assume that the latter part of that string is really a not properly enclosed <small> tag, and may or may not chop off the rest of the entity. Ugly.

    15. Re:Atom? by cascadefx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We have this problem at work. We run a student services portal that is bundled with other stuff by a third party company. One option for content is to include RSS feeds/channels. Currently it only supports/renders these RSS formats: 0.9x (RSS format), 0.9 (netscape simple RDF format), 1.0x (RDF format).

      That's all fine and good, but there is a lot of content out there in newer (2.0) versions of RSS and now Atom that are not able to be rendered or are rendered poorly. This company has picked its "standard" and that's what we have to work with for now (although I am pushing for 2.0 RSS and Atom support).

      Luckily, some 2.0 channels work fine (others crap out) if we just identify them as 0.9x channels, but we have to test them all (time consuming).

      If there were some sort of standardization, then developers could adopt them without having to worry about 5 (or MORE) formats to have to deal with. Much better for the developers and thus the end-users.

      In the meantime, I am looking at finding some way to munge various channels into the most feature-rich version that our software supports, but that is still a lot of overhead for something that would be simplified with just a tad bit of direction and standardization...

      Think of what HTML would have been like if there weren't some semblance of order applied to it early on... we had problems enough with client specific tags as it was.

    16. Re:Atom? by jacobito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish the parent post could be modded up even further. The problem with RSS is that the spec is sufficiently vague that it is practically guaranteed that any RSS parser you write will eventually encounter an RSS feed that is valid according to the spec but cannot be correctly parsed. It's a mess.

      If you really want to open your eyes, download the Universal Feed Parser and take a look at the enormous number of test cases that the author uses.

      It's hoped that Atom will benefit from the tremendous amount of accumulated experience and knowledged gained by watching the failures of RSS. The analogy might be that Atom is to RSS as XHTML 2.0 is to HTML, with the exception that we hope it's not too late to adopt Atom (as is surely the case with XHTML 2.0).

    17. Re:Atom? by cortana · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at XSLT? You can use it to transform XML data from one vocabulary to another; eg from RSS 2 to 0.9/1.0.

    18. Re:Atom? by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      RSS is read-only, and Atom, as well as being an easier format to grok, can be used to publish entries, as well as retrieving them.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    19. Re:Atom? by laird · · Score: 1
      "Why did atom even come into existance? Was not RSS already established, or is there some kind of deficiancy in RSS that i'm missing here?"

      Why did RSS even come into existance? Was not ICE already established? (NB: ICE was in production in 1998, before which it was submitted to the W3C, etc. See the ICE web site for more history.

      People create new protocols that duplicate existing ones all the time. Unfortunately. It often comes down to politics and personalities.

      That being said, it's possible to overcome this forking and work together, or to at least find areas of cooperation. ICE2, for example, adopts some aspects of RSS -- you can use ICE2 to perform push, incremental delivery of RSS items, for example, which makes things quite a bit more efficient.

    20. Re:Atom? by JohnDoe.Slashed · · Score: 0

      And they named their child Neutron...

    21. Re:Atom? by Isofarro · · Score: 2, Informative
      The problem with RSS is that the spec is sufficiently vague that it is practically guaranteed that any RSS parser you write will eventually encounter an RSS feed that is valid according to the spec but cannot be correctly parsed.

      That's already happened. When Reuters launched its RSS feeds two weeks ago it was valid as per the RSS2.0 specification, but every news aggregator failed to display the stock-ticker names within the feed. Silent data loss.

      What is unfortunate, from an RSS perspective, is that this problem has been known for quite some time. Previous efforts to correct this problem were mired (one of the factors that lead to the Atom initiative). But it took a public failure of Reuters feeds before the RSS folk took it seriously enough to think about discussing it. So far, with the help of Mark Pilgim and aggregator authors test cases have been established for this particular scenario.

    22. Re:Atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it as a compliment.

      -SC

    23. Re:Atom? by cascadefx · · Score: 1

      No, I haven't yet. I am getting quite the education in XML and I know that XSLT is part of a good toolkit.

      know of any good online resources?

    24. Re:Atom? by cortana · · Score: 1

      I was going to post a links to the XSLT tutorial on w3schools.com, but it was down at the time. It is back now however. It has tutorials and references for a lot of web related tutorials, including XML and XSLT.

    25. Re:Atom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's basically a clash of one staggeringly, mindboggingly huge ego -- Dave Winer's -- with another staggeringly, mindboggingly huge ego -- Mark Pilgrim's.

      There are also some minor technical reasons, of course.

    26. Re:Atom? by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Gotcha. So if you wanted to send the plain text string " big small " you'd have to first HTML-encode it:

      big < small

      and then XML encode that:

      big &lt; small

      ? Messy indeed. And yet if the spec indicated that that would be the case, not a big deal. Its the "custom" that makes it crappy.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  5. RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! by fastdecade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will RSS and Atom finally converge?

    HOPE SO! Blogging has moved so fast that the tangled web of RSS protocols is confusing to RSS publishers and users alike.

    Far more important than their individual features would be a single standard, so that publi7shing tools could stop bothering about compatibility issues and get on with features people care about.

    Only Google has the power to create an RSS standard. Google, you're our only hope!

  6. Are you insane?!? by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny
    Will RSS and Atom finally converge?

    If they do, then the [trekmode]Universe will come to an end![/trekmode]

    Oh, wait, that's matter and antimatter. Never mind. False alarm. Boy, I'm embarrassed now.

    1. Re:Are you insane?!? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No...that'd be the two universes mentioned in the TOS episode "What of Lazarus"

      What of Lazarus...and what of Lazarus...

    2. Re:Are you insane?!? by csteinle · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've always thought that Italian restaurants must have measures to prevent pasta and antipasta coming together and destroying each other in a huge release of energy.

    3. Re:Are you insane?!? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Except it's antipasto...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    4. Re:Are you insane?!? by csteinle · · Score: 1

      Spoilsport.

      Anyway, while I agree that it's more correctly termed antipasto, I've often seen antipasta used.

      One of the many results that turn up on Google when searching for antipasta.

    5. Re:Are you insane?!? by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I am indeed a spoilsport, apologies.

      BTW I've often seen "teh" used instead of "the" on /. but it doesn't make it right (and no, it's not always a deliberate hommage to Jeff K).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS by James+A.+S.+Joyce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, yeah, the story's about Google, but Slashdot's probably the second most popular website with an RSS feed, and it, um, sucks, to put it bluntly. It's updated infrequently, you're banned if you accidentally load it every 40 minutes instead of every hour, there's only one flat feed for all sections, and so on and so forth. Taco, can you fix your RSS? Setting a good example and all...heck, it's because of Slashdot that we have an additional RSS module!

    1. Re:I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS by costas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because I always hated /.'s RSS myself, I ended up building this newsbot to get my news fix: memigo will scrape HTML and read RSS and it will rank articles based on user ratings and the "reputation" that each source builds up over time. More interestingly (and on-topic), memigo will produce custom RSS feeds with just your recommended news articles --you basically get a special URL to get custom RSS from, or even custom PDA-optimized feeds if you want.

    2. Re:I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS by child_of_mercy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Washington Post? London Telegraph?

      The world's major papers are shifting to RSS in a big way.

      They've got audiences geekdom only dreams of.

      People who want a free wire service will be disapointed.

      but Moreover provides something pretty close.

      And if google news went RSS (or stopped barring others from scraping it) then yes it'd be even closer.

      but RSS/Atom is very handy if you've got a lot of sites to monitor.

      --
      'There is a Light that never goes out.'
    3. Re:I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS by spruce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yahoo News has a free RSS service

    4. Re:I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS by devilspgd · · Score: 1

      How hard would it be to add a &logtoken and have it generate content based on my personal preferences? And give me a free pageview an hour, after that then bill me a pageview as long as I have them.

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
  8. RSS & Atom by JaF893 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Hopefully google will adopt RSS rather than Atom. I don't know why but I've always preferred RSS. Incase you are thinking WTF here are some links courtesy of Wikipedia:
    RSS
    Atom Note: These pages are a bit thin on detail but contain some useful links if you want to find out more

  9. The weight of Google by Infonaut · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but it would be nice if the clout of the company that dominates search could be used to help a standard rather than hinder it.

    Microsoft, are you watching?

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:The weight of Google by normal_guy · · Score: 1

      You mean Atom, the sorta-standard that a recently acquired company uses? If they adopt it they'll be creating the standard. In that case, Google's taking a page out of Microsoft's playbook.

      --

      Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
    2. Re:The weight of Google by normal_guy · · Score: 1

      My apologies to everyone whose blood pressure is rising after reading my comment. I misread the writeup as 'Google is considering Atom and RSS.' I regret the inconvenience.

      --

      Linux: Free if your time is worthless.
    3. Re:The weight of Google by iGniSz · · Score: 1

      Micrsoft already listened, it's going to publish security warnings and such on an RSS 2.0 feed. So much for atom.

    4. Re:The weight of Google by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      Google is switching from supporting one standard (under development), Atom to supporting two Atom and RSS. I suppose if you adhere to the belief that "more is better" then this is a good move. If you believe that corporations shouldn't take sides in standards wars then this is also a good move. But it certainly isn't a case of abandoning something proprietary for something standard as you are painting it.

  10. Who uses Atom?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I do some website development and have actually gone out and looked for decent Atom newsfeeds just out of curiosity. I have never found any (yes I know how to use google, teoma, dogpile, etc...) worthwhile newsfeeds using this standard. Perhaps some of the readers have seen such feeds. I would be very interested to hear of good technical feeds using the Atom standard. Also why Atom? I might be ignorant of what makes Atom a good alternative, RSS seems to work well, but I am new to the scene maybe someone could enlighten me as to why we need the Atom standard.

    AC

    1. Re:Who uses Atom?? by prostoalex · · Score: 3, Informative

      LiveJournal has atom feeds enabled for all of its accounts.

      Here's for example, ATOM feed from my account (don't read it, it's in ru-ru anyway), and if you change the username, you can get anyone's ATOM feed.

    2. Re:Who uses Atom?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful


      bored developers of course !, it wouldnt be computer programming if we didnt keep re-inventing the wheel

    3. Re:Who uses Atom?? by SeinJunkie · · Score: 2, Informative

      For anyone interested in the tag differences between the two feeds, look at the simplicity of the RSS feed compared to the noticeably more complex Atom feed. The difference will probably enlighten many people, as it did me, about which information is more useful. It seems that they have jammed a whole lot more attributes into each element. The usefulness of that information can be dubious at best, however.

    4. Re:Who uses Atom?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everybody who uses Blogger gets an Atom feed.

      The RSS 2.0 specification is woefully underspecified, and frozen so no improvements can be made. It specifically tells people if they want something better, they should do it themselves and not try and improve RSS.

    5. Re:Who uses Atom?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you elaborate a little. A concrete example would help gell this in my mind.

    6. Re:Who uses Atom?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      An example of underspecification? The RSS 2.0 specification says that the <description> element may contain escaped HTML. In previous versions, it contained plain text. RSS 2.0 has to allow plain text to maintain compatibility with previous versions.

      So what happens when somebody includes escaped HTML special characters in their description element? Do they intend the element to be treated as HTML or are they simply talking about HTML or something else that uses angle brackets?

      There is no way of knowing.

      People proposed a type attribute to fix this. They were ignored. Then Reuters had a problem with this issue, and Dave Winer scrambled to fix it, after ignoring everyone else's pleas for fixes to this problem.

      Popular public RSS readers have generally treated all instances of <description> elements as escaped HTML. This doesn't usually break anything.

      Now they are proposing to fix this issue by requiring escaped HTML. Great! That means the ambiguity has gone.

      The only trouble is, they made a big song and dance about how RSS 2.0 is backwards compatible and that there wouldn't be any changes to it. They can't fix this issue without changing this.

      It's worth changing, right? Sure. But Dave Winer doesn't want to lose face after attacking other "unstable" specifications. So they are sneaking it into the specification as a "clarification". It breaks backwards compatibility. It's a substantive change. But they are spinning it as imprecise wording, which is a total lie.

      The situation isn't helped because Mark Pilgrim noticed this break in backwards compatibility, and pointed it out straight away, providing a test case of a feed that would be broken by this change.

      Dave Winer and Mark Pilgrim dno't get along.

      Dave Winer, who is constantly claiming he does not control the RSS specification, deleted Mark's comment and testcase from the feedback to the advisory board.

      Personally, the specification is bad enough, but the attitude of Dave Winer makes the RSS specification untrustworthy. You don't know what changes he's going to sneak in next under the guise of "clarifications". You don't know if he's going to delete objections people raise.

    7. Re:Who uses Atom?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So let me see, RSS could be a wonderful standard that is responsive to its users but because of personalities involved development is slow and/or nonexistant right? This sounds an awful lot like the XFree86 problem, or am I way off base?

    8. Re:Who uses Atom?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    9. Re:Who uses Atom?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're essentially correct, except XFree generally has a sound architecture. RSS is badly designed from the beginning and half of it is just cruft at this point. The actual concept of syndication, and how people have gone about using RSS are excellent, it's just that the implementation leaves a lot to be desired, and obnoxious personalities prevent any meaningful development of RSS. Which is where the whole Atom push came from.

      If Winer wasn't so obnoxious, chances are RSS 1.0 would have come along leaps and bounds by now. As it is, the community is split over multiple, slightly imcompatible versions of RSS and Atom, and the leading RSS version, 2.0, is both dead in the water, and has no significant improvement over the original 0.9x specifications.

    10. Re:Who uses Atom?? by takkaria · · Score: 1

      They look almost identical in complexity - they're just different. Differences seem to be:

      * Dates are in a uniform, international standard in Atom and they aren't in RSS
      * The atom feed uses "escaped" attributes so aggregators actually know what they're getting
      * Links are expressed differently

      Initially Atom may look a little more complex than RSS, but it's not. Just different.

  11. Um, no. by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 1

    Since when are you required to click on links people provide in their posts? Since when is a good point moot due to a moronic link at the bottom? Get lost, tool-boy.

  12. methinks... by abscondment · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is probably a good choice. I mean, the W3C uses RSS to syndicate their page (see the bottom).
    As the state, RSS is based on RDF, which is an approved standard.

    Based on the coverage at ZDNet, it seems that Yahoo! also goes RSS...

    Why would the two merge when so many major players are leaning towards RSS already?

    1. Re:methinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "RSS" as a standard does not exist.

      Your post is a good example. What Dave Winer calls "RSS" (0.9x, 2.0) is not based on RDF. That would be "RSS 1.0". Right now, there are three standards going forward: RSS 1.0 (RDF-based), RSS 2.0 (Winer), and Atom.

      Part of the problem is that Dave wields veto power in the RSS world, and he hasn't been responsive to others' needs. Like any good open project, his faults have prompted forks (two, in this case).

    2. Re:methinks... by period3 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Ah yes, the wonderful organization that helped standardize such gems as:

      - XML, because the world is a hierarchy!
      - XSL, because processors are cheap!
      - XPath, we don't need no stinking database!

      Any guesses as to what their next trick will be? A markup instruction set architecture? Or maybe some sort of death clock...

    3. Re:methinks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Dave Winer calls "RSS" (0.9x, 2.0) is not based on RDF.

      Even that isn't accurate. The initial version of RSS, 0.90, was based on RDF, but the RDF parts were pushed back by Netscape due to time constraints and the initial public specification, 0.91, didn't use RDF. Dave Winer copied the 0.91 specification and republished it, and subsequently published other 0.9x specifications, none of which used RDF. When RSS 1.0 was released, that used RDF, Dave started accusing people of theft and all sorts, and published RSS 2.0 that was similar to the later 0.9x efforts, didn't have anything to do with RSS 1.0, and forbade anybody from releasing further RSS specifications. He also tried to register "RSS" as a trademark, but was turned down. At this point, I feel the need to remind everyone that Netscape designed the format and not Dave Winer.

      So stating that 0.9x didn't use RDF is missing the important fact that RSS was originally based upon RDF in the 0.90 specification.

      When people got fed up with the antics surrounding RSS, they gave up trying to fix RSS 2.0, and started a new specification with a new name, Atom, just like the RSS 2.0 specification suggests. Dave Winer accused them of trying to take over RSS again, and considers Atom to be a type of RSS.

    4. Re:methinks... by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure you understand. There are about four mutually incompatible standards all called "RSS". The one that the W3C uses is by most of the same people who have now moved on to Atom to avoid the war over the RSS acronym.

    5. Re:methinks... by jacobito · · Score: 4, Informative
      To my knowledge, RSS 1.0 is based on RDF. The two other major versions of RSS, 0.91 and 2.0, are not. All told, there are at least 9 different versions of RSS, each slightly incompatible with the other:
      There are 9 versions of RSS, all of which are incompatible with various other versions. RSS 0.90 is incompatible with Netscape's RSS 0.91, Netscape's RSS 0.91 is incompatible with Userland's RSS 0.91, Netscape's RSS 0.91 is incompatible with RSS 1.0, Userland's RSS 0.91 is incompatible with RSS 0.92, RSS 0.92 is incompatible with RSS 0.93, RSS 0.93 is incompatible with RSS 0.94, RSS 0.94 is incompatible with RSS 2.0, and RSS 2.0 is incompatible with itself.
      (from the above link)
    6. Re:methinks... by lou2112 · · Score: 1

      there will soon be 10, per recent revisions ("clarifications") to RSS.

    7. Re:methinks... by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

      RSS does not necessarily need to be standardised, if you have readers that can parse the information of all types. I use netnewswire and never have any problems with all manner of feeds. Some standards are just ways for ISO to make money. In my experience, ISO loves money. I personally think the organisation is antiquated and money-hungry. Sorry to go offtopic.

      --
      I hate sigs.
  13. Headline is misleading. by sakusha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No, they're not "moving towards" an RSS standard. They're merely supporting RSS as well as Atom. Doesn't seem like they're moving towards anything, they're not moving away from Atom.

    1. Re:Headline is misleading. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Google own Blogger, which already produces Atom feeds.

  14. Re:RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! by l810c · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Additionally, I have not been impressed by RSS in general. It seems like most of the feeds are small blurbs with links to more content on the website.

    I've tried several of the clients and have tried to add as many news feeds as I could, but it all seems the same. Little content and just a link to a webpage. I could just go visit the webpage and see the same summaries.

    I was expecting something like an AP newswire, with interesting stories from all over the world that I could not find on a standard website. If there's something I'm really missing here, then please let me know.

  15. Dave Winer still controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    During the recent call for comments over changing the RSS 2.0 specification, Mark Pilgrim supplied a test case to show that it was a non-backwards-compatible change.

    While Dave Winer is supposed to not control the RSS specification, he managed to delete Mark Pilgrim's comments as he has control over the server the comment system runs on.

    Mark and Dave don't get on; that's no big secret. But Dave interfered with feedback because of his grudge against Mark. I don't think anybody should claim that RSS is not under Dave's control.

  16. Convergence is futile by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Even if RSS and Atom converged, some people would continue using the old RSS 2.0, so you'd still have two standards (RSS 2.0 and the converged format). You'd be no better off.

    Also, given the different value systems of the RSS and Atom advocates, attempts at convergence are just likely to lead to deadlock.

  17. Re:RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! by somethinghollow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RSS isn't too bad if you ignore all the Dublin Core additions.

  18. Re:RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's what an aggregator is for. The idea is that you subscribe to a bunch of feeds, and you are notified when a new story is published. It simply lets you handle more information sources in less time.

  19. Now that Google is Embracing It by DarkHazard · · Score: 1

    I expect that RSS will have many features added onto it. Google is known for its innovation, why would RSS be an exception to the rule?

    1. Re:Now that Google is Embracing It by JimDabell · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The RSS 2.0 specification is frozen and no new development is allowed under the RSS name. The specification states that any new development must happen in namespaces or in new specifications with new names. Funnily enough, when people actually do that (with Atom, and with "funky" feeds), they are still criticised for it by the people who wrote that part of the spec.

    2. Re:Now that Google is Embracing It by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      The specification is frozen, but that doesn't stop Google extending RSS 2.0 with its own custom elements. In fact, the RSS 2.0 schema permits this explicitly.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    3. Re:Now that Google is Embracing It by yoz · · Score: 1

      ... which would be fine if all that RSS 2.0 needed to fix it was a few new elements.

  20. I asked them by Apreche · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When google news first emerged I thought hey, I wish I could just get the headlines as links. Later after I discovered and starting heavily using RSS I e-mailed google and told them that. Then when googles blog came out I was suprised to see it was syndicated. But not with RSS, heck their blog was made with blogger. I expected more from great google. Maybe now they will actually give me my RSS world news headlines I've been waiting for. But hopefully they wont point to news sites that need registration :P

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:I asked them by djeaux · · Score: 1
      When google news first emerged I thought hey, I wish I could just get the headlines as links.

      So did I. So a friend & I wrote a scraper. And we enjoyed our headlines until he got the old "cease & desist" notice.

      I hope they don't figure out I'm scraping a bunch of Google Groups, too...

      --
      "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
  21. needs XHTML for its product first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting


    hey Google, how about creating a website that is standards compliant, before worrying about RSS feeds and minor sundries, good to see the W3C reccomendations and all that hard work in creating standards in the web browser are not going to waste.

    why bother ? its not like it matters right ?

  22. RTFA, Declan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "As of June 4, it appeared no decision had yet been made on the issue. A Google representative declined to comment."
    You can speculate all you want, but you got nothin'. This is like Michael Dell asking his engineers to test the Opteron in the Dell labs.
  23. No one controls RSS by rcade · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a member of the RSS Advisory Board along with Dave Winer and several others. What do we have to do to convince people that it isn't controlled by Dave Winer or anyone else? Read the license for RSS 2.0. The specification is released under a Creative Commons license and no ownership is claimed of the format embodied by the specification.

    --
    Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
    1. Re:No one controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What do we have to do to convince people that it isn't controlled by Dave Winer or anyone else?

      For a start-off, when you ask for feedback on a proposed change to the specification, let people participate, even if Dave doesn't like them. Don't let him hide important feedback because of personal grudges.

    2. Re:No one controls RSS by tomwhore · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dave is historicaly a pain in the ass. FreeSoftware/OpenSource should be able to get around ego centric pains in the ass, so let it be with RSS.

      Bye Bye Dave

      -tomwsmf

      --
      Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap! Poor little clams! Snap! Snap! Snap!
    3. Re:No one controls RSS by pudge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do we have to do to convince people that it isn't controlled by Dave Winer or anyone else?

      Stop lying by saying it is not?

      The specification is released under a Creative Commons license and no ownership is claimed of the format embodied by the specification.

      Yes, it is under a Creative Commons license. So what? perl is GPL'd, but no one would say p5p doesn't control it. Sure, there's some slight difference in the case of true ownership, but the real difference is that there is a recognized body that everyone looks to, and that body was created by Dave, and is controlled in no small measure by Dave.

      The fact is that anyone who tries to improve upon or modify RSS is met with Dave's wrath. And this is precisely why Atom exists. There can never be convergence because Dave is still involved, and -- as evidence by the fact that he has several times over several years said he would no longer be invovled, but still is -- he likely forever will be.

    4. Re:No one controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The fact is that anyone who tries to improve upon or modify RSS is met with Dave's wrath. And this is precisely why Atom exists.

      And yet Dave tries to pass Atom off as a type of RSS. So, in essence, there is nothing anybody can do with relation to syndication without incurring The Wrath of Dave[tm].

    5. Re:No one controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about participating in the IETF working group in a constructive way? If the RSS Advisory Board collectively said "we suggest calling the RFC 'RSS 2.5' and making the top tag be 'rss'", does anyone think the Atom people would turn down the olive branch?

      Mr. Winer, tear down this wall!

    6. Re:No one controls RSS by pudge · · Score: 1

      does anyone think the Atom people would turn down the olive branch?

      Mr. Winer, tear down this wall!


      Yes, because no one trusts Dave.

    7. Re:No one controls RSS by burns210 · · Score: 1

      Has anyone considered throwing RSS specs and code and whatnot onto a sourceforge project and fork RSS?

    8. Re:No one controls RSS by pudge · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what RSS 1.0 was -- and Dave lost no opportunity to slame its developers every chance he got (except when he thought it would make him look good to pretend to be nice to them). Been there, done that.

    9. Re:No one controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People tried with RSS 1.0, and Dave hounded them into giving up on the RSS name altogether. So they tried again with Atom, and Dave is still on their cases. Dave simply wants to own syndication.

    10. Re:No one controls RSS by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      Don't forget metaWeblog, criticise it at your peril...

    11. Re:No one controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Roger, here's what you have to do to convince people that RSS isn't controlled by Dave Winer:

      -- Document and disclose the process for choosing members of the advisory board. Who issues the invitations? Who decides who to invite to be a member? If a member quits, who decides who will fill the empty slot?

      -- Enlarge the board so that Dave has to convince more than one person in order to get his way.

      -- Get people on the board who are not perceived by the public, correctly or incorrectly, as being Dave's cronies. It would be especially useful to get someone with technical stature in the business who has not been involved in the controversy.

      -- Eventually, convince Dave to retire from the board. The "Charles Goldfarb" factor is real, and a lot of people will just not participate if it means interacting with Dave, however unfair or irrational that feeling may be.

      (Comments similar to this post have been deleted by Dave from his message board.)

    12. Re:No one controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ooooh, slashdot fight! I gotta say Rogers was looking unstoppable with a UID of 4482. But then my man pudge was all like, 3605, bitch.

    13. Re:No one controls RSS by rcade · · Score: 1

      Sure, there's some slight difference in the case of true ownership, ...

      There's no ownership at all. Dave doesn't own the format, the specification, or the name. He ceded control of the spec to Harvard's Berkman Center and an advisory board and released it under an open license. He's one member of five on the board.

      Surely you recognize the model here: It's the same as any open source project led by an influential person who's been running it for years. Do people listen to Dave when it comes to RSS 2.0? Yes. Do we have to? No.

      --
      Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
    14. Re:No one controls RSS by rcade · · Score: 1

      For the most part your suggestions about the board membership are good, and in part one has already been implemented: He's one member out of five. As I said on my weblog, one of my goals is to help transition RSS 2.0 from a benevolent dictatorship towards a more public, participatory model. Personally, though, I think it would be crazy to push Dave out of RSS. One of the biggest reasons it has succeeded is because there was an outspoken software developer championing the protocol and promoting it tirelessly in code and on his weblog.

      --
      Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
    15. Re:No one controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He ceded control of the spec to Harvard's Berkman Center and an advisory board

      ...and tampers with the feedback intended for that advisory board. How is the board supposed to operate if Dave is manipulating the official channels? Also, isn't at least one of the board members employed by Dave?

    16. Re:No one controls RSS by pudge · · Score: 1

      There's no ownership at all. Dave doesn't own the format, the specification, or the name.

      You misunderstand the intent of the words I used: I am saying this difference you refer to is only slight, in practical terms. I meant that the real issue is not ownership.

      I wasn't saying Dave actually owns it. I have always maintained the fact that Dave *never* owned RSS, he just conned people into thinking he did. He owned certain specifications of it, yes; and now, he merely exercises de facto control over them.

      He ceded control of the spec to Harvard's Berkman Center and an advisory board and released it under an open license. He's one member of five on the board.

      Just one post ago, you said RSS is not controlled by Dave or anyone else. Now, you say the RSS spec is controlled by an advistory board, of which Dave is a member; so you were wrong on both counts, as I said.

      Do people listen to Dave when it comes to RSS 2.0? Yes. Do we have to? No. ... which is what I said, which is why Atom exists.

      Not only does Dave have a long history of abusing people who try to do anything with RSS that he doesn't like, he remains in de facto control today.

      I am not making the argument that RSS is a problem because "someone" is in "control" of it. I am saying RSS is a problem because "Dave Winer" is "intimately involved" with it. Define it as "control" or not, it's really beside the point. Dave has a lot of influence, so therefore many people will not be involved with it.

      Perhaps I was wrong to even bother with trying to make the point that Dave is in de facto control, even though he is, because it overemphasizes issues that lack importance, instead of focusing on the core fact that Dave is influential/intimately involved at all.

      Did you know that a year before RSS 2.0 was released, Dave said he was leaving RSS development, and while expressing his distaste for the fact that rss-dev released RSS 1.0, jokingly said he should leapfrog them and release his next version as 2.0, to take back the mindshare? He lied about leaving RSS development, and then put his joke about manipulating the version numbers into actual practice. This is one of the many examples of the bullshit that people won't put up with by dealing with RSS development as long as Dave is involved.

      Nothing you can say about Dave will ever change people's minds about this. And nothing you can say about how people should come together means a damned thing, because that's the same sort of thing Dave says, right before he stabs them in the back, and everyone knows it.

    17. Re:No one controls RSS by pudge · · Score: 1

      Personally, though, I think it would be crazy to push Dave out of RSS.

      Make your choice: it's either Dave, or the people who are eschewing RSS because of Dave. I won't try to make the argument that you should choose us (I am NOT affiliated with Atom, I just support their efforts, BTW; I am just one of a relatively large group of people who can't stand him) over him; it's not like most people in the world care. But you can't have both, it really is him or us.

      One of the biggest reasons it has succeeded is because there was an outspoken software developer championing the protocol and promoting it tirelessly in code and on his weblog.

      I don't buy this at all. RSS 0.9 was the most common RSS in use for a long time, even after RSS 0.91 had been out for awhile, and Dave had nothing to do with it. By the time RSS 0.91 came out, people were already using RSS 0.9 a lot, as well as other formats (like Slashdot's own custom XML feed). People started to realize Netscape had this standard, so they switched to it, and it grew.

      Did Dave contribute to its growth? Sure, but so did everyone who used it and promoted it. It would have grown anyway, probably just as much, or close to it, and it would have been far better, if not for Dave.

      The one thing I will give Dave in all this is that he was the primary champion for simplicity, which remains a very important issue. However, he was also the primary champion for disorder (e.g., adding arbitrary names to the spec) and lack of extensibility, which is what necessitated RSS 1.0 (and, subsequently, Atom) in the first place. And he was also, as is well-established, the primary cause of the split in the RSS developer community. So while his contribution in emphasis on simplicity was important, he contributed a net loss to the users. Sorry.

    18. Re:No one controls RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Dave doesn't own the format, the specification, or the name.

      The only reason Dave doesn't own the name is because he was turned down when he applied for "RSS" as a trademark. Despite the fact he didn't invent RSS or come up with the name, Netscape did.

      Even though he doesn't own the name, he hounded RSS 1.0 developers and accused them of theft repeatedly and publically. Even though he doesn't own the name, he forbids anybody from using it in the future in the RSS 2.0 specification. Even though Atom uses a completely different name, he still attempts to confuse people into thinking it is a type of RSS.

      rcade, can you really not see how harmful his behaviour is to RSS? Why don't you eject him from the board? Or is he the one that decides who is and isn't on the board? If so, it's a bit hard for you to say that he doesn't control RSS because there's a board. If you need a clear reason for kicking him out, I'd say that tampering with feedback to the board to hide problems with one of his suggestions is reason enough to get rid of him.

  24. Re:hrmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe they'll kick you in the face...

    <sounds "gangsta">damn dude, cover your grill!</sounds "gangsta">

  25. Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 2, Interesting
    This is good. Petition Google to rank XHTML valid pages more highly than others too:

    http://www.petitiononline.com/googhtml/petition.ht ml

    1. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      XHTMl > HTML 40.1 Strict > HTML 40.1 traditional > ...
      Nah, that is not a usefull way to rank things when the content is what you are interested in (as opposed to whatever standard things comply with)
      So.. bad plan for as far as I'm concerned.

    2. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by The_reformant · · Score: 1

      This is the most stupid ideas I've ever heard! A search engine should rank pages based on how good the content is not on what technology or standards it does/doesnt apply to.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
    3. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If everyone used valid HTML, Google wouldn't have to put so much effort into understanding broken HTML, and their parsers wouldn't have to deal with as much cruft (thereby becoming more efficient). It's a good idea for Google to do it. Unfortunately, as you can see from their homepage, they aren't very clued up about HTML, CSS or HTTP (their smarts lie in their classification and clustering technology).

    4. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yeah, lots of support for XHTML there.

    5. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      but if Google was to follow proper XHTML and CSS it would be a huge push for standards. There are plenty of browsers out there that support the basics of XHTML and CSS2...for a matter of fact only MS IE is seriously broken. It would take a big push like Google to get MS to wake up and support standards or start watching Firefox numbers rise....a very bad thing. Also, if Google is doing it then you'll have a much better time convincing other web pages to do the same and copy Google....espically after they have a really big IPO.

      You gotta remember, that type of mindshare positioning is a classic MS tactic [i.e. buy MS because Bill Gates is really rich works really well on those wall street types] MS has already anounced they want Google's "lunch"! Google should really take the first shot. Of course MS can fix its broswer easily for free...but they don't WANT to!!! You need a 500 LB gorilla to get them to move. And if MS does move...IE is now fixed to be standards compliant by a mandatory patch from MS and all those other "broken" pages magically work too, meaning you won't be needing IE specific tags to get YOUR standard's compliant page to work anymore.

    6. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by ^_^x · · Score: 1

      What the...
      How about they just rank pages based on the content? That way you wouldn't get highly polished useless fluff sites?

      I know you must looooove XHTML, but try fitting some other standards in and see how bad it sounds:

      "Petition Google to rank ActiveX-enabled pages more highly than others!"

    7. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by N1KO · · Score: 1

      Even if the w3c validator claims it's broken, I've never had a problem accessing Google with any browser. That is what matters in the end.

    8. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Ranking pages based on the content is damn near impossible when the idiots who wrote the page have no idea how to properly mark one up. The best you can do is strip the tags and use the text.

      I think the idea is pretty good. It might encourage people to mark up their pages more semantically, and that might in turn lead to better ways to search.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    9. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Or instead of waiting for IE to be fixed, you could cheat.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    10. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 1
      [I'll reply to this comment - but the reply applies to some of the others below too]

      If you RTFA you'll see that it is in Google's and Google's users' interests to rank XHTML pages higher.

      To quote:

      Why would it be in Google's interests to do this? Because Google wants the best experience for its users. And the best experience for users will be to get an XHTML valid webpage which works across any browser, is accessible for the blind and partially-sighted, and works on devices like mobile phones and PDAs.

      Rich.

    11. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Why would it be in Google's interests to do this? Because Google wants the best experience for its users.

      Agreed, but a small hint, google is a SEARCH ENGINE, not a HTML correctness filter, just in case you didn't notice.

      > And the best experience for users will be to get an XHTML valid webpage which works across any browser, is accessible for the blind and partially-sighted, and works on devices like mobile phones and PDAs.

      *lol*

      Yeah, that is the theory indeed.

      Now if you excuse me, I'm back to reality of 2004, where XHTML is on average bigger then HTML 4.01
      and is more complex to parse due to its XML complience.

      In 2004, it also turns out to be the case that many PDA browsers understand HTML 3.2 and 4.01 perfectly well, but don't like sites using too much graphics, or sites countign on your screen being 800x600 no matter what.

      Such sites that don't work with that are designed badly, and XHTML is a very bad kludge for trying to fix that, the design of such sites needs to be fixed.

      So if you are worried about the PDA and Phone browsers, then you need to think again.

      For that matter, the broken 3.2 variation that slashdot uses works pretty well on my PDA browser, while quite a few XHTML pages don't. (running PalmOS 4 and either palmscape or blazer)

      So... wether HTML 4.01 or XHTML gives a better user experience is somewhat debatable, at least when looking at a real world PDA with 2 real world PDA browsers.

      Ah well, have fun with your XHTML campeign, but get it out of your mind that it is relevant to the large majority of users, including those who the petition claims to help.

    12. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now if you excuse me, I'm back to reality of 2004, where XHTML is on average bigger then HTML 4.01 and is more complex to parse due to its XML complience.

      You are clueless. XML (the basis for XHTML) is much, much simpler than SGML (the basis for HTML). This makes it much easier to parse. If you don't believe me, as anybody who has written a parser for both or read the specifications for yourself.

      XHTML is not bigger than HTML. XHTML 1.0 has exactly the same number of element types and attributes as HTML 4.01. XHTML 1.1 can reduce the number of element types and attributes because it is modular. XHTML Basic is smaller than HTML. No other versions of XHTML have been published as recommendations.

    13. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      I am aware of the difference between XML and SGML, but you are as well as me aware of the fact that HTML is a severely stripped down subset of SGML, to the point of it being simplistic.

      If you are talking about an XML vs an SGML parser, then yeah, XML is a lot simpler. HTML is still simpler then that and to render the html subset that is usable on a small screen you only need a very simple parser, not a full fledged sgml parser.

      Btw, I quite see reasons to want xhtml, but those are not the ones mentioned in the google petition, at this moment they simply fail to make up in real world situations.

      It is simply not true that a technical specification is going to make thigns better for disabled people for example, a THOUGHTFULL implementation of a specification that keeps them in mind and uses what the spec has to offer for helping them is what can make the web more accessable.

      XHTML offers even better ways to support disabled people then previous versions, but seeing the utter lack of usage of already existing features is rather telling me that more and better features (tho nice to have) will not solve the problem.
      Getting peopel to actually use such features will help.

      If people insist on making their website look cool and don't care about this at the same time, it will keep going wrong, no matter what HTML or XHTML or other markup language you want to use.

      The modular setup and extendebility are two very good reasons for wanting xhtml.

      If and when people write XHTML and use the specification to its possibilities, then sure, you end up with smaller pages that will work on almost anything. MIn fact, the same was true for html 4.01 + CSS 2.0 when used properly. Many sites manage to use it in a way that validates and yet won't render properly or even in a usable way with anything other then internet explorer

      Looking at what is around on the web and validates as XHTML vs what validates as html 4.01 transitional, the simple result is still that esp. on a small device like a palm m505, the later seems to work a lot better, and usually seem to result in smaller transfers. That may be a result of bad design and bad usage of xhtml maybe, but that just brings us back to the point I was making regarding the google petition and disabled people, it is not a matter of what standard you comply to so much as how well you design your stuff.

      Back to the discussion, google is a search engine. Go read what they have to say themselves and it seems that their philosophy is to be better then anyone else by doing a better job at returning relevant results. That is their livelyhood for now, and they go to the point of converting things like pdf to html to be able to index those as well.. Do you really believe they are going to consider this untill the majority of both websites and users support it (not just int heory but in reality)

      A much better thing to suggest to them and to call a petition for is to add a filter to only get results that are either compatible with your browser as reported by its user-agent, or comply with a specific standard, and to display the (x)html version a page complies with as part of the search result.

      What this current petition suggests is simply opposed to the one thing that made them bigger then anyone else, so no chance that they are gonna listen.

      The argument regarding visually disabled people sounds better then it is btw. Google will do a better job at indexing pages that are easily accessable with a text only browser as a simpel result of their technology or so they claim (read about optimizing your site for indexing) and that makes a lot of sense also when you consider they are mostly indexing text.

      They should, instead of meddling with standards by means of their search results, start generating valid html themselves (and I don't care what version)

      Btw, I am visually impaired myself (have a visus of approx 20%). While I can use a display given a large enough one and decent sized fonts, and can use

    14. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am aware of the difference between XML and SGML, but you are as well as me aware of the fact that HTML is a severely stripped down subset of SGML, to the point of it being simplistic.

      Sorry, no, you are still clueless. HTML isn't a "stripped down subset of SGML" at all. It's an SGML application. It's defined in terms of SGML. It is not a subset at all.

      If you are talking about an XML vs an SGML parser, then yeah, XML is a lot simpler. HTML is still simpler then that and to render the html subset that is usable on a small screen you only need a very simple parser, not a full fledged sgml parser.

      No, HTML is still more difficult to parse than XHTML. For instance, you need to keep track of context and what elements are allowed within what other elements in HTML parsers. XHTML doesn't require you to do that since XML requires end tags. One of the main reasons for developing XML when we already had SGML was that SGML-based languages are a pain in the arse to parse.

      XHTML offers even better ways to support disabled people then previous versions

      No. XHTML has no advantage for disabled people. At all.

      Back to the discussion, google is a search engine. Go read what they have to say themselves and it seems that their philosophy is to be better then anyone else by doing a better job at returning relevant results.

      Exactly. Promoting well-written websites is in their interests as they don't have to work so hard on their broken HTML parser, and they get more semantic information to work with.

      Do you really believe they are going to consider this untill the majority of both websites and users support it

      I think you are confused. Nobody proposed eliminating broken websites from Google's index.

      A much better thing to suggest to them and to call a petition for is to add a filter to only get results that are either compatible with your browser as reported by its user-agent, or comply with a specific standard, and to display the (x)html version a page complies with as part of the search result.

      What? Nobody would use such a thing, it's infeasible to implement part of it, and it doesn't give the incentive to create better pages (which is the whole point of the petition).

    15. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      > Exactly. Promoting well-written websites is in their interests as they don't have to work so hard on their broken HTML parser, and they get more semantic information to work with.

      Which just means that when their bot gets better information to work with, it will do a better job and the pages will be easier to find. The result you are looking for will happen without the petition and without favoring xhtml in their pageranking.

      > What? Nobody would use such a thing, it's infeasible to implement part of it, and it doesn't give the incentive to create better pages (which is the whole point of the petition).

      Nobody would use such a thing because they are interested in information relevant to their search, and not in whatever standard it complies with as logn as they can read it.

      That is also exactly why it is against the interest of a search engine to favor one standard over another.

      While no doubt you are right in your technical argument about it beign easier for google to parse correct xhtml, it is in their interest to present the most relevant information, and that simply has nothing to do with what markup language the results are in as long as they can assume the majority of their users can display it.

      Or to put it differently, when a user searches for somethign on google, they are interested in the information, and that is what should determine the pagerank. WHat form the information is in is a subject for filtering (just like image searches)

      If you don't understand that simple thing, then the only point of the discussion is the technical differences between html and xhtml, and I am sure you can explain those better then I can and is interesting enough. But if you send or propose to send a petition to google, take a look at where their business is. Seeing the consious efford they put into indexing things like pdf besides html makes me think that they care abotu relevance of information more then anything else.

      Besides that, when the web is soemwhat difficult to index and they have developed the technology to still do it relatively well, why would it be in their interest to eliminate that advantage?

    16. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Why help MS? They've got $50billion in the bank...they don't fix IE because they don't WANT to fix it! IE7 means nothing...other than some poor sap customer is trying to appologize for Bills stuckupance. We need somebody like Google to put the screws to MS and call them out to make them follow open standards...which directly conficts with their business plans to wreck the net too!

    17. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Using IE7 might be helping Microsoft, but it's helping yourself far more. If you don't use it, then you might get a warm and fuzzy feeling by not "helping" Microsoft, but you lose half the features of CSS2 at the same time, making your sites suck more. It's really up to the developer. :-/

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    18. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      Use something else! Like Opera, firebird, Mozilla, ect. My point is that there are alternitives to using IE that already work better. A company as large as Google could make a huge difference. After all, they already have a Google toolbar that people download to "fix" some of the bugs in IE! Google's time and money would be better spent using open standards and pointing out all the other good browsers that will work properly with their new layout.

      The first step to dethroning MS is to get another large company to come out and say "they're wrong!" and offer up a solution to fix it.

    19. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      I do use something else! I use Mozilla Firefox on Windows, and Konqueror on Linux.

      However, you seem to be forgetting that people visit my web sites who aren't me.

      To account for those users, you have the options I mentioned. (a) use something like IE7 to allow you to use 100% standards compliant HTML and CSS to build your site, or (b) use non-standards-compliant crap on your site.

      Since you hate the IE7 idea so much, you must not be fond of standards compliance, which is highly ironic since you seem to be for it in every other way.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
    20. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1
      you almost get my point...look how many people download shockwave, flash, google toobar, Gator, and the constant stream of patches that Ms puts out. We need to somehow get more people to just download Firebird [call it a great new super free plug-in that makes your member(s) bigger & and solves world peace] after all .9 is under 6 megs! many people download more spyware than that a day.

      It's time to "pull people up" rather than dumb the internet down to their level!

    21. Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

      Well of course. I just use IE7 so that I can forget about IE during development. I write my sites to the standards, which work in Firefox fine, and I haven't actually found any major complaints from IE users yet so it must be working. :-)

      I think though, if we want to "sell" Firefox, the only efficient way is to preconfigure it at the factory, so users who buy their new computers get Firefox as their default browser.

      --
      Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  26. Atom group approved at IETF by WebMink · · Score: 3, Interesting
    According to Tim Bray, the IETF has approved the formation of a group to standardise Atom at IETF. Tim says:
    There is no meaningful technical conflict between RSS and Atom. RSS is widely deployed and is not going away any time soon.
    so chances are this will be a convergence activity and not the war that news.com wants to write about.
  27. ditch Atom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    RSS is winning. It doesn't matter if Atom is technically superior, or if hating Dave Winer is fun.

    Atom is simply wasting space at this point. Sure, the RSS spec sucks. I can't even tell you exactly what an RSS feed is supposed to look like or what all the different versions are. And Dave Winer can't write a well-defined spec to save his life (apparently doesn't understand ISO8601 dates, or Unicode, or that XML defaults to UTF-8). (He views this as a feature, not a bug.)

    But in a few minutes I can write a program that generates an RSS feed that works in most aggregators. I don't understand all the vagueries of Atom, and I'm not going to bother learning. I have enough trouble trying to get non-geeks to understand RSS and how it works.

    The next step is a big company like Microsoft or Google adopting RSS and accurately defining their own version of it to clear up any remaining confusion. Neither Winer nor Ruby nor Pilgrim have the power to set a standard like that. For instance, we need an easy way to click on an RSS link and have it come up in the aggregator. Radio Userland does it a certain way, NetNewsWire does it another way.

    RSS is going to win, if you like it or not.

    I can appreciate what the Atom folks are doing, because I like to masturbate too.

  28. Google and RSS - the full story by WallaceSz · · Score: 2, Informative
    There's already a service called Google Alert that offers dynamically updating Google Search results through RSS feeds...

    Pretty handy.

    1. Re:Google and RSS - the full story by chiro · · Score: 1

      But this service isn't from google itself, but rather a third party.

  29. Whats the best free/open aggregator? by VividU · · Score: 1

    I swear I've been through all of them and they all had big issues.

    I'm curious about the best aggregators for all the OS's

    1. Re:Whats the best free/open aggregator? by ^_^x · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surprisingly, none of them are that great to use IMHO...

      I like Amphetadesk myself though. It basically combines your feeds into a simple webpage and views on whatever browser/OS choice you use. (Well, Windows, MacOS and Linux at least)

    2. Re:Whats the best free/open aggregator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The simplest and most effective one I've used is the Mozilla Firebird RSS sidebar. It's convenient, it doesn't have any oddities in performance or stability, and it complements your browsing. My only complaint with it is that it doesn't offer a mode to show all the feed summaries on one page, only one at a time.

  30. RSS - A broader view by manmanic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This discussion of Google using RSS for Blogger is all well and good, but what about the broader question of integrating RSS into their mainstream search services? By comparison, Feedster searches RSS, and provides its results in RSS. But to get an RSS feed for a Google search you need to use the 3rd party GoogleAlert. Not to mention that Google recently shut down a third party news-to-RSS service. Aren't the guys from the Googleplex supposed to have technological vision or something?

    1. Re:RSS - A broader view by Derek+Mason · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, the main problem with RSS is finding a suitable advertising model. With web search, you can put the ad results to one side, without interrupting the flow too much. Advertising in RSS would have to be far more intrusive, upsetting users and destroying Google's low-interference model.

  31. Re:hrmm... by Tarpan · · Score: 1

    I find it ironic that you're bashing W3C and making an html/xml-error in the same post. You include the type of tag you're closing, which is not valid. :)

  32. This is rich... by stienman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The "RSS 2.0 format is by far the most widely used format. There was a time when it looked like things would coalesce, but then things started to fragment, largely due to Google," Winer said. "RSS deserves Google's respect, and it's not getting it."

    Ah yes. Let's translate the first sentence, "RSS 2.0 format is by far the most widely used format. There was a time when it looked like things would go my way, but then people started to use a competing syndication system, largely due to Google"

    The line about RSS deserving respect from anyone much less Google just cracks me up. Regardless of which is "better," Google made a business decision to focus on one. RSS deserves nothing from Google or anyone else. It's a specification for crying out loud.

    Keeping this in mind, let's now translate the second sentence, "I deserve Google's respect, and I'm not getting it."

    That sounds about right. If you are so tied to your creation that you cannot seperate yourself from it then you need take a step back, take a deep breath, and avoid making decisions for your baby until it, and you, have matured.

    -Adam

  33. The underlying perspective by Infonaut · · Score: 1
    "... it certainly isn't a case of abandoning something proprietary for something standard as you are painting it."

    I left myself open to that one. Actually my intention was to point out that although Google "acquired" Atom in a sense, and might simply try to bury RSS, Google may be actually trying to figure out which technology is best.

    It's not that either standard is proprietary, it's that Google seems to be coming at this not from the perspective of, "It's gonna be Atom, and dammit, we're gonna ram it down your throat," but more from the perspective of, "We recognize that both Atom and RSS have promise, and we're going to take an approach that will not rule out good technology in the pursuit of market dominance."

    There may be other much more important underlying reasons for Google's decision, but this sort of behavior appears to be thoughtful. Based on past behavior, that's one of the big differentiators (for me) between Google and Microsoft.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
  34. Re:RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! by cascadefx · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are some really nice/creative feeds out there that push the limits of RSS.

    Amazon for example has a TON of feeds showing what the current top sellers are in virtually every category. Those at the top of the list are the top sellers and so forth.

    That's one interesting way of imbedding information into a channel without actually adding textual information. I could forsee a script that takes that (easily parsable) data and turns it into a regularly updated graph. The same thing could be done with screen scraping and the HTML page, but RSS is so much easier to deal with.

    We have the local dining services create the week's menu as an RSS text file. It is a simple 10 minute cut and paste job and it appears in our portal almost as soon as it is updated... no more emails telling what the week's menu is and no need having to visit (yet another) web site for the info. I just log into my account (something I do daily) and it is right there.

    NASA's earth observatory has a really cool RSS news feed. What I like about their feed is that the tiny (only allowed to be 144 pixel wide x 500 pixel high) image that is usually reserved for a site banner/icon has been co-opted as a snippet of their picture of the day. If you click on it, you are taken to the site with the full image.

    I know of a couple of places that are starting to post team scores as rss feeds. I could forsee the ability to do play-by-plays with rss.

    A lot of people are doing really cool things with RSS that are outside the bounds of simple headlines. You just have to think about them in a different way.

  35. Re:needs XHTML for its product first by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    actually that's a great idea. A 500 LB gorilla like google could really serve to keep all the big players honest! Google has nothing to loose by adopting web standards and everything to gain. MS key bargining chip is OS integration...If Google tries to play in that space they will loose. They need to ensure they create their own space to play in. Open and vocal endorcement of W3C standards as well as implementing them to the fullest is one way google can keep the playing field level. Their Primary market is internet searching...not web services...but keeping MS from fragmenting that market is a very important goal. Even MS is not big enough to deliberately break Google in IE... the uproar would be huge!

  36. Has anyone noticed the irony by ShatteredDream · · Score: 4, Funny

    That if you add a h to David's last name that his name aptly matches his behavior?

  37. just a way to kill time between by dpilot · · Score: 1

    It's just a way to kill time while medium-sized things execute. Short things execute so fast that you stay on task. Long things execute so slowly that you multitask, and work on something else. Medium-sized things don't give you enough time to get going on another task, but more than enough time to absorb the useful content of a typical blog or /. post. Come to think of it, figuring the usefulness of most /. posts, reading /. ought to generate time instead of wasting it.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  38. What's in it for me? by easyfrag · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am not a blogger but I have been a reader of weblogs for a while now, (I have used many aggregators and have settled on Bloglines a web-based aggregator that is awesome with a tabbing browser like Firefox.) I have been following the Atom/RSS dispute for a while but have never seen the answer to the following question: What does this syndication war mean to me as an end user?

    A few others in this thread have asked a similar question but the answer always seems to do with how its beneficial to the blogger or content provider. Now this is important of course but as a geek I have learned to be wary of such arguments, the first time I fell for it I ended up with blinking text in my browser. Maybe I'm too cynical but I'm comfortable being cautious and indeed a little skeptical of the latest and greatest technological innovations.

    That being said: What will Atom do for me, Joe Blogreader, that the defacto standard RSS does not? Feeds and aggregators have changed how I use the net, my bookmarks menu has shrunk significantly and I'm on fewer mailing lists. What does Atom have to offer ME that I should bug my content providers to offer Atom feeds in addition to or in place of RSS?

    1. Re:What's in it for me? by yoz · · Score: 1

      1: Proper internationalisation support. You don't need this if you're an English-speaker only reading and writing English feeds, but do remember that, in global terms, this puts you in the minority.

      2: Flexible comment feeds embedded in the main feed, so people can keep track of the comments going on in your blog in a standard fashion that's configurable in their reader.

      3: The confidence that the content you create will retain its integrity in every conformant reader due to a completely unambiguous spec, which is not the case with RSS 2.0.

  39. Re:ditch Atom Agree by crashoverride025 · · Score: 1

    I've written an RSS Agent into my browser, 404Browser, it was really easy to write for RSS 2 cause it was the straight forward <item> <description> <pubDate> <title> ) but with atom it appears to change up the tag names to look special... (yes the NewsAgent has support for atom feeds) but why try to create an adaptation of a format that works well? why. Its pointless. I'm just shocked that RSS hasn't caught on outside the geek-world. I've talked with the local paper (which has quite a large audience) and they still don't understand how much it would benefit their readers if they used RSS feeds, even if it was a delayed release. With my useage of it, using PAD and RSS to inform people of new releases is the best way, as soon as I have a new release (updating the pad and rss files) users flock to my site and get the newest version, instant publicitiy.) I'm really courious how RSS is going to be abused once it hits the fan. Email has spam what will RSS have. I'm sure its going to first be pop-ups if the RSS reader enables HTML (which that can be quickly fixed) . Also browser exploits would be exploited quicker if the RSS reader doesn't have a filter to filter non formating tags out.

  40. XML is a tool. by hta · · Score: 2, Interesting

    XML is a standard from the World Wide Web Consortium.
    Some RFCs are standards published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Some are not.
    Most of the standards document protocols of some sort. Some document tools used to describe protocols, and some of these are languages (ABNF, RPSL).
    Some RFCs document protocols that use XML to represent their syntax.
    Some of these RFCs are IETF standards.

    1. Re:XML is a tool. by JamesOfTheDesert · · Score: 4, Informative
      XML is a standard from the World Wide Web Consortium.

      Well, not really; XML is a recommendation from the W3C. The W3C is not a standards body. It is a vendor consortia.

      The W3C puts out specs that it expects vendors and developers to agree on and work with. If all goes well after some period of time then it may be worth moving the spec onto a standards body, such as ISO.

      Sadly, the word "standard" has become a substitute for "specification. Hence you hear about the Java(tm) "standard", the Atom "standard", and so on. Everytime somebody puts something down on paper they say, "Hey, we have this new standard." But it makes for great marketing to say, 'Oh, we're all standards-based.'

      --

      Java is the blue pill
      Choose the red pill
    2. Re:XML is a tool. by hta · · Score: 1

      I will be very surprised if the W3C ever bothers to ask anyone to standardize its recommendations.
      If it quacks like a standard and walks like a standard, don't believe the people who call it a recommendation, a request for comments or a piece of blue cheese.
      The ITU standards are called "recommendations" too.

    3. Re:XML is a tool. by JamesOfTheDesert · · Score: 1
      If it quacks like a standard and walks like a standard, don't believe the people who call it a recommendation, a request for comments or a piece of blue cheese.

      Granted, XML has achieved "duck standard" status. But the larger issue is one of language and precision, a problem likely created, but certainly argumented, by marketing.

      The W3C has also blessed XML Schemas. Do you buy the idea that one should be using this headache because, after all, it's a 'standard'? Or should you use Relax NG, which is Yet Another Schema Standard?

      Developers get pushed into uing inapproriate technolgies because clueless PHBs see the word "standard" attached to something and feel compelled to use it. "Must use [J2EE|Struts|SOAP|XML]; it's a standard."

      --

      Java is the blue pill
      Choose the red pill
    4. Re:XML is a tool. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      The W3C is not a standards body. It is a vendor consortia.

      Nonsense. To quote from the W3C:
      "You've heard it: the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) creates Web standards."
      It is a standards body.

      Its is not a vendor consortium. It includes such obvious non-vendors as The Library of Congress, the Universities of Southampton and Helsinki and the United States Navy.

    5. Re:XML is a tool. by JamesOfTheDesert · · Score: 1
      Nonsense. To quote from the W3C:
      "You've heard it: the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) creates Web standards."

      They are quoting what people say about them, not asserting what they are (though also not saying anything to dispell the misconception.)

      It is a standards body.

      From the front page:

      The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) develops interoperable technologies (specifications, guidelines, software, and tools) to lead the Web to its full potential. W3C is a forum for information, commerce, communication, and collective understanding

      No mention of standards.

      And while membership is not restricted to vendors per se, vendor corporations are the major players.

      --

      Java is the blue pill
      Choose the red pill
    6. Re:XML is a tool. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      No mention of standards.

      Then you did not look very far. From their Markup section:

      "It brings the rigor of XML to Web pages and is the keystone in W3C's work to create standards.."

      And while membership is not restricted to vendors per se, vendor corporations are the major players.

      Therefore, by definition, it is not a vendor consortium.

      Definition of consortium: "an association of companies."

      W3C is not an association of companies.

  41. Godwin's Law finished this already by Kalak · · Score: 2, Funny

    As Tim Bray has pointed out, the RSS discussion has ended by rule of Godwin's Law. Dave was the first to bring up the Soup Nazi, and so he has therefore lost.

    --
    I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    1. Re:Godwin's Law finished this already by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      What is a Soup Nazi? Someone who insists on pure white cabbage only?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    2. Re:Godwin's Law finished this already by Kalak · · Score: 1
      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
  42. i'm quite proud of my custom newsfeeds websites by Fo0eY · · Score: 2, Interesting

    my newsfeed site saves me a ton of time every day

    check it out here: http://fooey.net/Newsfeeds.cfm

    just one big page with all the news sites I like where i can see at a glance anything new that pops up

    i'm currently working on making it more database driven so I can search for those rouge articles you can never seem to find

    something like this one that i'm working on for fark: http://fooey.net/Farkives/

  43. you are ABSOLUTELY right. by NumbThumb · · Score: 1

    i'm only here right now 'cause updatedb is slowing down my box at the moment.

    oh wait, it's done.
    bye...

    --
    I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this 120 chars is too small to contain.
  44. RDF, ATOM, RSS & Semantic Web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Here's a semi complete article on Atom and RDF / Semantic Web.

    Basically, one XML format or another doesn't quite matter in the long run - however, if something is expressed as RDF/XML in the first place, it saves having to do some transformation work.

    For those that don't know, RSS isn't just for news. As RDF, RSS can import relations and data from any other RDF vocab - ie you can extend a news article to have a geographical location, you can define who an author is in FOAF - or better still, if an article is about someone, that can be done in FOAF too.

    Vocabularies like DAML+OIL take it one step further too - so you can infer relations that are not explicitly mentioned. IE, you can say "all children have fathers, all wives have husbands, so if Linda is married to my father, she is my mother." Of course you have to specify childOf parentOf marriedTo relations, and their inverse's, but you get the vague idea.

    With Atom expressed as RDF we can combine both RSS and Atom to create a document with meaning beyond the bounds of one format.

    This isn't a one or the other case - both thrive to fill deficiencies in each other...

  45. XSL, anyone? by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    IMO, a news aggregator which can't already provide the ability to extend its reach via XSL is a poor tool. A sane developer would take the path of least surprise, implementing multiple formats by transforming them all to a single format, so they don't have to fuck around with the multiple formats in the real code.

    But if you're stuck with someone else's system which can't parse RSS 2.0, you can obviously cheat by using something like the W3C's online XSL transformer to convert the 2.0 feeds to a format which you can already understand.

    You can probably find XSL files for converting between different RSS formats already.

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  46. Ho hum. by Trejkaz · · Score: 1

    Question: what do you get if you merge Atom and RSS?
    Answer: Atom.

    So it sounds good to me. :-)

    --
    Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
  47. yeah, and you know what? by dangermouse · · Score: 1

    Pudge is right.

  48. CC licensing is an insulting red herring by yoz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I've said elsewhere: The difference between a completed technical standard placed under the Creative Commons and a truly open one is the difference between being allowed to scribble over the President's name in the newspaper and being able to vote for his opponent in the first place.

    I could take the CC-licensed RSS spec and change it however I wanted, and it wouldn't help things one bit because it wouldn't be an accepted standard any further than my own hard drive. It would just be another incompatible spec calling itself RSS 2.0 that developers have to deal with.

  49. RSS is a hack by SteveX · · Score: 2, Insightful

    RSS is being used as a way to broadcast a notification that something has changed. You post a new article to a site, and all the people who have subscribed to your RSS feed get notified.

    But RSS is a polling mechanism.

    I'd much rather see something like the IRC protocol or NNTP used, where the publisher posts one message and it propagages through a network of servers to everyone interested. The way it is now, if a million people subscribe to your RSS feed, that's a million aggregators polling every 15 minutes. Ouch.

  50. You forgot the most significant parameter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    If the top content sites decide to support one format (atom, rss or whatever...) THIS format will be used by most people thus this will dominate.
    It isn't about the W3C, Dave Winer, supporters of Atom etc etc.

  51. You're a fucking tool. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, n/t.

  52. source of news Re:and in other news.... by daveb · · Score: 1

    Here's where that post originated - he's right it really is a new WG. Announced Wed, 05 May 2004