|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
- To discuss rss syndication feeds from wikipedia, visit Wikipedia:Syndication.
Functions Not Clear
The article is packed with information and is ok to read; it was quite handy to get a get a heads-up on RSS. But some areas could use a bit of clarification/simplification. I did some editing (184.108.40.206) on the first part but it's still not clearly stated what checks the target site for updates, what downloads any flag, and what downloads the new data- probably many units/functions/software are involved. If so, the slant of the article is a bit misleading. CPES (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- 'RSS' doesn't download anything. RSS is a passive format, downloading is done by newsfeed readers and feed aggregators – pieces of software. Your question is a good one and should be answered, but should that be done in the feed reader article, or in a larger scope overall article on RSS newsfeeds? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Good points Andy. From what you imply and as I understand it, RSS is just a standard. But the term is used in different ways as are many terms (in the UK 'MOT' for example) and this can fudge the issue.
- Arranging the related RSS articles into a coherent structure, as you imply, is the way. This is the case with many subjects but, often, it's difficult to do and maintain due to the nature of Wiki.
- My initial thoughts are that one article, essentially covering all major RSS areas, would do the job and would be the simplest approach. The article could have sections covering, RSS Standard, RSS Use, RSS History, RSS Readers... Just first thoughts though; the danger is that this approach may result in a very long article. Once the facts are there though, it's often possible to shorten, sometimes considerably, an article just by rearranging the words and eliminating repetition.
Required fields as indicated in the section "RSS Compared to Atom"
The indication of required fields is not accurate, because (for RSS) it's only on the feed level that there are required fields, not on the item level. The section could be improved if another table was added comparing the item vs entry level of RSS vs ATOM, indicating the required fields on this level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasond75 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Seems odd that the article on Aaron Swartz says "Swartz was involved in the development of the web feed format RSS" but that he's not mentioned in the article on RSS. Jar354 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- WP has a bit of a problem with semweb topics, so many of them keep getting either pruned or deleted. Aaron's article was being discussed for deletion altogether just before his death. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
"A Lot Better"
I'm uncomfortable with this sentance under "History":
This version became known as RSS 0.9. It was basically a clone of Channel Definition Format, with a few key differences: it wasn't published by a Microsoft employee, so it wasa a lot better.
Sounds to me like a dig at Microsoft. Doesn't seem very NPOV or encylopedic to me. What does everyone else think? - Robert
There's actually a lot of truth to this statement, so I added it again from the archive. When building the initial spec, Netscape looked at both ICE and CDF as existing attempts to create a standard. In the end, the hostility between Microsoft and Netscape made it make more sense to incorporate an RDF derived standard, since that's what Netscape was pushing at the time.