Phil Windley posted that there has been some interesting questions and discussions on his forum highlighting a readers post about RSS vs. Atom.
I thought it was worth reposting the reply I made on the forum here since I've been too occupied to post much else:
One thing that is always missing or overlooked in the discussion/debate/furor of RSS vs. Atom is that Atom provides a unified feed format and API – RSS, in any form, does not. The real value is when you need a publishing API and feed in your system. (The more powerful case for the Atom effort is the Blogger API vs. MetaWeblog API vs. Atom.) If all you need is a one-way syndication format then one of the RSS formats will suffice. That is why Google, SixApart and more recently Nokia are signing on to Atom.
As someone developing software for these syndication formats, I believe the eventual benefit of the Atom feed to the average Joe/Jane user will be that their aggregator software will provide a more reliable and consistent experience. Because of the extremely loose specs,
(many) multiple versions, and the large number of optional and overlapping tags with similar meanings, it requires a lot of work, independent research and trial-and-error to reliably present any and all feeds to the average user. I've also found it requires on-going tweaking as new patterns emerge. (I wince when someone refers to RSS as simple. I realize that its the part of me that is a developer doing the wincing though.) Given the effort and care going into the Atom feed format and its pending submission to the IETF as a formal standard, I'm fairly optimistic that Atom will be an improvement in this regard.
I too will use both and let users decide.
<p><a href="http://www.windley.com/2004/03/12.html#a1094">Phil Windley posted</a> that there has been some interesting questions and discussions on his forum highlighting a readers post about RSS vs. Atom.</p>
<p>I thought it was worth reposting the reply I made on the forum here since I've been too occupied to post much else:</p>
<p>One thing that is always missing or overlooked in the discussion/debate/furor of RSS vs. Atom is that Atom provides a unified feed format and API – RSS, in any form, does not. The real value is when you need a publishing API and feed in your system. (The more powerful case for the Atom effort is the Blogger API vs. MetaWeblog API vs. Atom.) If all you need is a one-way syndication format then one of the RSS formats will suffice. That is why Google, SixApart and more recently Nokia are signing on to Atom. </p>
<p>As someone developing software for these syndication formats, I believe the eventual benefit of the Atom feed to the average Joe/Jane user will be that their aggregator software will provide a more reliable and consistent experience. Because of the extremely loose <q>specs,</q> (many) multiple versions, and the large number of optional and overlapping tags with similar meanings, it requires a lot of work, independent research and trial-and-error to reliably present any and all feeds to the average user. I've also found it requires on-going tweaking as new patterns emerge. (I wince when someone refers to RSS as simple. I realize that its the part of me that is a developer doing the wincing though.) Given the effort and care going into the Atom feed format and its pending submission to the IETF as a formal standard, I'm fairly optimistic that Atom will be an improvement in this regard. </p>
<p>I too will use both and let users decide. </p>
Leave a comment