Talk:RSS/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

External Link Suggestion

The RSS Advisory Board has published a best practices guide to RSS that's intended to supplement the specification. I think it would be worth including here, since it has the official imprimatur of an RSS group. Jamesdennis 19:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Have any reliable sources commented on this recommendation? I'm not sure of its notability at this time. It also reads in a rather legalistic manner. So without any independent commentary on what it means, I'm not sure if we have enough knowledge to explain it to our readers. Adding it as a pure link, with no explanation in our text, might not be justifiable. EdJohnston 16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "reliable sources", but the authors of the Feed Validator test for it and WordPress was patched to support it. Jamesdennis 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This may not an earthshaking issue, but literally no reliable sources have commented on what the RSS Board has done.The requirement for reliable sources does help to filter out a lot of stuff that is unessential to our articles. The citation to Wordpress is simply a bug report. We have no article called Feed Validator, so we don't currently recognize it as notable, though conceivably someone could write such an article. Our article on the RSS Advisory Board itself has no reliable sources. Dave Winer has reliable sources; I imagine he enjoys that. EdJohnston 03:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What does Dave Winer have to do with this? The "reliable sources" requirement isn't reflected in the present article at all. Do you want the article to have technical information, or is it just supposed to reflect mainstream reporting on a technical subject, which in the case of RSS is generally "gee whiz" stuff for novices? Jamesdennis 05:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mashups?

An editor recently added a See Also subsection to RSS devoted to mashup tools. I suggest these items are not of great relevance here. The word 'mashup' doesn't occur in the regular text of this article. The first article listed in the new 'See also' section, Microsoft Popfly, does not contain 'RSS' or 'feed' in the text of that article. I believe the RSS article should not be used to 'advertise' others that are only peripherally related. The situation is a bit different with podcasts because enhancements were added to RSS specifically to make podcasting easier. (The RSS article's mentions of podcast I think are well-justified). EdJohnston 16:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic or Really Simple

This topic is ironic as heck; it is called "Really Simple Syndication" but is the most complicated crap I have read in along time. The history section seem much less relivant to understand than other sections burried down in the article, cant the top 2 or three section be for "laymen" to get a grasp on how to use this RSS thing. More the 50% of the population dont have computers and of those that do less than 10% of those that vist this article seeking to understand what RSS is and how to use it will gain much of anything from it the way it is written, including me.76.177.80.36 (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Trim down the account of the RSS Advisory Board?

This article's account of the RSS Advisory Board has been growing over time. This is a possible violation of WP:UNDUE since no press accounts are offered to show that the Board is influential, or that any companies have changed their product offerings due to the Board's advice.

Here the current version of this paragraph:

In January 2006, RSS Advisory Board chairman Rogers Cadenhead announced that eight new members had joined the group, continuing the development of the RSS format and resolving ambiguities in the RSS 2.0 specification. Netscape developer Christopher Finke joined the board in March 2007 [1], the company's first involvement in RSS since the publication of RSS 0.91. In June 2007, the board revised its version of the specification to confirm that namespaces may extend core elements with namespace attributes, as Microsoft has done in Internet Explorer 7. In its view, a difference of interpretation left publishers unsure of whether this was permitted or forbidden.

Our RSS article is not news and it is not essential for us to record all the comings and goings of board members. The past conflict between Winer and Cadenhead is surely receding into the mists of time. The notability of the Board's clarification of the spec has yet to be shown; no evidence has been provided to show that their new draft is influential. If new material about the RSS Board needs adding, I suggest that it be done over in the article RSS Advisory Board and not here. How about this as a new version of our own paragraph:

In January 2006, Rogers Cadenhead relaunched the RSS Advisory Board without Dave Winer's participation, with a stated desire to continue the development of the RSS format and resolve ambiguities. In June 2007, the board revised their version of the specification to confirm that namespaces may extend core elements with namespace attributes, as Microsoft has done in Internet Explorer 7. In their view, a difference of interpretation left publishers unsure of whether this was permitted or forbidden.

Please comment on this proposed shortening of the paragraph. EdJohnston (talk) 19:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"RSS 2.0 adds that capability, following a simple rule. A RSS feed may contain elements not described on this page, only if those elements are defined in a namespace."
This rule in the original spec is clear enough for me. No need for clarification!!! Macaldo (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Spec Link Suggestion

Netscape just designated the RSS Advisory Board as the publisher of RSS 0.90 and RSS 0.91. Instead of linking those two specs to the Internet Archive, this article's External Links should link RSS 0.90 and RSS 0.91 to the board's copies of RSS 0.90 and RSS 0.91. Jamesdennis (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Unless there are objections, I will make this change to those two links one week from today. Jamesdennis (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Podcasting Contradiction?

This article says both that...

In December 2000, Winer released RSS 0.92[11] a minor set of changes aside from the introduction of the enclosure element, which permitted audio files to be carried in RSS feeds and helped spark podcasting. He also released drafts of RSS 0.93 and RSS 0.94 that were subsequently withdrawn.[12]

...and that...

For example, the RSS 2.* branch was the first to support enclosures, making it the current leading choice for podcasting...

Is that a contradiction? It doesn't seem logical to me that "the RSS 2.* branch" would include RSS 0.92, but the forking in the RSS specification makes it difficult for me to get a real grip on it as a non-expert. If RSS 0.92 isn't part of the RSS 2.* branch, then they can't _both_ have been the first to support enclosures, can they? gothick (talk) 15:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's good that you noticed this. Since this article seems to include links to all the relevant specs, do you have the time to track down the discrepancy, and make whatever change is needed? EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do, but it won't be for a while; I'm writing to a tight deadline at the moment. I'll put a note in my diary :) gothick (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Intro to RSS Article

This blog introduces the concept of RSS Feeds, why they're important, how they differ from bookmarks, how to subscribe to them, and the like. I feel it is relevant to use as an external link under the "articles" section at the end of Wikipedia's RSS page. Everything You Need To Know About RSS 69.15.214.217, 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the RSS article you'll see that it answers all the basic questions, and is well-documented for those who want to do further study. I see no reason why we need to link to a commercial web site at http://hannonhill.com to get information that is already adequately presented in our own article. See WP:WPSPAM for concerns about the addition of unneeded commercial links to articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


I would argue that the basics are NOT well documented on this page. It may make reference to what a Feed Reader is, supply a sentence or two here and there about RSS subscription, etc. However, there is no basic summary content for those who are looking for a brief, less-technical description of RSS Feeds. Some people have no interest in the XML related to an RSS, or how the actual feed works, instead they just want to know why RSS Feeds are important, how they're relevant to average web surfers, and why they should even care to use them. That's what the blog I've referenced above seeks to accomplish- showing people how they can use RSS feeds if they want to, how they differ from Bookmarks, and why they should even care. It's not about linking to a "Commercial Web Site", it's about providing web surfers with transparency and easy access to the information they're looking for. I'm sure there are very few people on Wikipedia who would both look for an INTRO to RSS, but also feel compelled to purchase software that sells for thousands of dollars... again, this isn't about selling anything, it's about helping people out.

Also, if you take a look at the post above - "Not encyclopedic or Really Simple" you'll see another browser's perspective of why this page is not simple and a basic intro guide such as the blog I've suggested as an external link would be EXTREMELY helpful for the average web user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.214.217 (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding external links is strongly resisted all across Wikipedia; you are barking up the wrong tree. If you haven't taken at look at WP:WPSPAM, I urge you to do so now. Note that if you have some affiliation with the hannonhill.com site *you* should not be adding their link at all, per our conflict of interest rules. If you think there is some information we should have in our RSS article which is not there currently, you could always propose changes to our current text. We have another article called Web feeds that is at a simpler level than this one. EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments. I see that the Web Feeds page is a more basic version, as you mentioned. However, at the very least, if the link should not be added, I think it would be helpful to include several items: the actual process of subscribing to an RSS feed and how it can change based on which browser you're using, the different RSS icons a web surfer may see (so they can easily recognize content that can be syndicated), the difference between RSS Feeds and Bookmarks, and a discussion of the vast number and types of Feed Readers available for subscribing to and viewing RSS Feeds. Like I said before, I was posting this to make a more basic conversation on RSS feeds available for people... and obviously, simply adding the content to the article itself would be equally as helpful. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.15.214.217 (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Put commas outside quotemarks

27-Feb-2008: Put commas outside: "A", "B", "C". Wikipedia uses logical quotation format, with commas/periods outside of the quotation marks (which I call "quotemarks"), unless quoting a full statement. See: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation for examples of the standard style using quotemarks. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Add information about linking the RSS feed to a webpage

What I'm missing here, is how to add a LINK element in the HEAD of a webpage, linking to an RSS feed that is related to the page (multiple RSS feeds can be linked this way). Would it be practical to add this information here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.148.214.178 (talk) 18:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

RSS to mail

It's possible to subscribe to RSS, in order to get news by e-mail, e.g. feedmailer.net. I think this could be added to the article. -- AKA MBG (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RSS "bitter power struggle"

Shouldn't this article somehow notify readers that a lot of the criticisms of RSS it links to as if they were neutral, official reports emerged in the context of, and were made by participants in, what CNET called a "bitter power struggle" between rival formats? [1] betsythedevine (talk) 16:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


RSS TO JAVASCRIPT

I came across this website which i think might be relevant to users as they can display RSS feeds on their websites via Javascript [2] I wanted to know if its possible to add this link on to the main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.55.176 (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Article's claim that RSS 0.91 "remains the most common RSS variant"

According to Peachpit as of January 2007, "There are three main versions of RSS as of this writing: 0.91, 1.0, and 2.0. According to www.syndic8.com—the huge RSS site that keeps all kinds of statistics on RSS and the many feeds out there—this is the percentage breakdown of RSS usage worldwide by version: * RSS 0.91: 13 percent * RSS 1.0: 17 percent * RSS 2.0: 67 percent * Less popular RSS versions: 3 percent"

Syndic8 itself is the only place I have seen the relative popularity of different feed types described. For example, as of today (August 27, 2008), they are indexing 546,069 total feeds of which 86,496 are Atom and 438,102 are some dialect of RSS. [3]betsythedevine (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

URI, not link

As I can't edit the page, maybe someone else will take care?

"The user subscribes to a feed by entering the feed's link into the reader" <- a link is the concept of "what you click on in a web browser", or actually even more abstract the connection between documents or fragments thereof, as established by <a> elements in HTML, or their equivalents in other formats, which you pretty much by definition can't "enter into a feedreader". What you do enter there is a URI - an address of a document in a format which happens to also be used for describing the destination of links in HTML, but nevertheless is a distinct concept. So, "link" here should be replaces by "URI". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.146.201 (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean to me?

I looked up RSS in Wikipedia to find out (a) what it is and (b) what good it can do for me the reader. Didn't find out the answer to (b). Why would a reader use RSS? What would it look like? If she can check a number of favored web pages quickly from one screen (which the article seems to suggest), what is the advantage of RSS over her own web page with links to those web pages?

The article would be better if it were a little more practical and a bit less technical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.89.213.86 (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RSS is intended to share its content, not to link it on the same site. But you can use it for that too. Acaciz (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely as well.

There's a ticker that can be downloaded here. :3 Blast 11.17.06 0908 (UTC -5)
EDIT: You need Firefox to run it, however.

Seconded

After reading the article, the only thing that gives me any real idea of what RSS is, is the example of a document. Ideally this page should give a clear definition of: What RSS is, what it is used for and how it works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartin (talkcontribs) 7 June 2007.

In the 4th paragraph in the History section there is mention of DTD, but there is neither a definition nor a reference.

incomplete without fullform

The article is incomplete without the full form of RSS abrivation, can anyone add this please and tell me how it helps for the end user, is it useful only in home page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.144.103 (talkcontribs) 6 June 2007.

RSS icon

I will write an extra article for the feed icon and split the content out of this article. at commons are enough usable feed variants Commons:Category:Feed icons and at aboutus.org is also another version. [4] somebody want to help? User:Mabdul/sandbox5 <-- there will be the article-proposal! mabdul 0=* 20:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Not clear what you are proposing. What is so interesting about the feed icon? We have no Category:Feed icons. EdJohnston (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)elz chris
I want to demonstrate the change of appearance, the history, the adoption (or not, see safari and the screenshot on this page) of the icon, the influence (see universal edit button), and so on! (oh and i correcdted above the cat, was meening the commons cat!) mabdul 0=* 22:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I was looking for some news articles or other indications that this is noteworthy. Is any of the info you want to write about available from reliable sources? betsythedevine (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Calling the orange icon "the RSS icon" is a misnomer. It's the standard web feed icon, as defined in the Feed Icon Guidelines. They explicitly include Atom. See also Web feed#Confusion between Web feed and RSS.--87.162.26.66 (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The original citation for that nomenclature is here: [5]. I agree that many things originally in RSS have been eagerly adopted by web feeds in general, including this icon. Feedicons.com is a commercial website of some kind, not an official reference source. betsythedevine (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Spam link problem

Two different but similar IPs in Turkey are working hard to add a spamlink. The top item in the linked feed seems to be about search engine optimization. The fact that two different IPs are working on this makes it harder to block, so I hope others will join me in reverting this until whoever it is out there gets tired of it -- or else suggest some better solution. betsythedevine (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone's complaint that this article is too hard to understand

Puh - leeze! What is an rss feed, for your typical Ignoramus Joe? 84.110.134.226 (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a shorter and much less technical explanation at the RSS article in Wikipedia in Simple English; hope this helps. betsythedevine (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

often referred to informally as a "URL" (uniform resource locator), although technically the two terms are not exactly synonymous

is this really relevant?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.199.232 (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

EXACTLY what I was going to say. This is why there's a link to the URI article in the first place, where the curious reader can learn all about URIs. Crazy. 71.0.81.92 (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

What is RSS Flux?

I've heard of RSS feeds, but is it common to call a "flux"? Why not on this page if so? -Jcbarr (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Based on quick Googling and the French equivalent of this article, "RSS flux" is used by Francophones to describe what in English is called an RSS feed. If "flux" becomes commonly used in English by reliable sources, it will show up in this article too. betsythedevine (talk) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

External links add

I think what this url RSS Help Info contains useful information about how to use RSS and may help many people to understand this. I don't know hot to add this link to the semi-protected page. If you think what this link may be useful please add this to RSS page.

Thank you, friends —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunoeleph (talkcontribs) 12:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from SnowfanD, 27 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} add a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_Detection_and_Notification to the "See also" section

SnowfanD (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: That doesn't appear to be closely related to RSS. Celestra (talk) 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Link fix

I dont want to register here, but I suggest to replace [[Icon]] → [[Computer icon|Icon]] in sentense "The feed icon used in several browsers". — 109.87.25.148 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so I changed it. betsythedevine (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 199.46.200.232, 17 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Recommend adding a simple "RSS for Dummies" section that ....

(a) states something to the effect that "RSS allows users to avoid manually inspecting all of the websites they are interested in, and instead 'subscribe' to websites such that all new content is pushed onto their browsers when it becomes available."

(b) describes a simple subscription process.

All the techno stuff can remain for the CS crowd. Less geeky folks need an English translation & how-to.


199.46.200.232 (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Partly done: a added to lede. If you have a specific suggestion for b please add it below. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

HTML on RSS 1.0 de facto standard citation needed

{{edit semi-protected}}

The article says: "As a result, publishers began placing HTML markup into the titles and descriptions of items in their RSS feeds. This behavior has become expected of readers, to the point of becoming a de facto standard". Citation needed in this last point.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturotena (talkcontribs)

Done -Atmoz (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Push/pull?

Something the article does not address well is what does an RSS reader or aggregator do? I'm guessing it must poll the "feeds" periodically for new material. I used "feeds" in quotes as the sources do not push new information to "subscribers" but rather those "subscribers" must repeatedly poll the source sites. Is this true? The article lead, but not body, hints that's the case with "The RSS reader checks the user's subscribed feeds regularly for new work, downloads any updates that it finds, and provides a user interface to monitor and read the feeds." However, the last sentence of the lead confuses this with "RSS allows users to avoid manually inspecting all of the websites they are interested in, and instead subscribe to websites such that all new content is pushed onto their browsers when it becomes available." How do you *push* to a web browser? Is it running a Java or JavaScript app that accepts this push traffic?

Unfortunately, the lead is not well supported by citations. Neither of the sentences I mentioned above are supported. Also, the language used on many potential sources for citations uses the POV of the publisher. For example, http://www.whatisrss.com/ says "a format for delivering regularly changing web content" rather than "a standard format that allows others to read content and from that to easily extract new content." http://www.webreference.com/authoring/languages/xml/rss/intro/ says "To start all you need is content you want broadcast, ..." Really, broadcast? Am I missing something? --Marc Kupper|talk 05:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

For information about web feeds in general (as opposed to information about the particular format called RSS), try web feeds or web syndication. To learn more about push/pull, I also recommend Ping_(blogging) (which talks about "push") and aggregators, which talks about what RSS readers/aggregators do. betsythedevine (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Betsythedevine. Those don't quite do what I was thinking of. I suspect the bulk of the people coming to this article are more interested in what an RSS feed is rather that learning about the RSS data format. At present RSS feed redirects to this article which is mostly about the format and has an unclear, and unsourced, explanation of what a "feed" is. There is an article at "web feed" which uses the RSS icon but it more general purpose and is poorly sourced.
Before digging into possible changes I wanted to confirm that RSS itself is just a defined format. The data could be pushed or pulled and the transport protocol could be http or something else.
I also I want to confirm that 99% of the time when someone encounters phrases such as "RSS," "RSS feed," "RSS subscription", or the RSS icon then what's really going to happen is that the person will be running an "aggregator" or "reader" application on their own machine, or a third party service or web site, that periodically polls each of the feeds or "subscriptions" for new material, pulls the data, and notifies the user of new or interesting material. If it's a or a third party service or web site doing the aggregation for you then the assumption is you will poll that site or perhaps it pushes the data (e-mail for example) to you. Genuine push, such as Ping_(blogging), is rare and either is done between RSS sources and third party aggregators or that the person needs to run an application that is set up to receive the pushed data. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Add information about RSS 0.99

Please add information about RSS (Robust Site Syndication) 0.99. It's official site is here: [6] 82.160.29.71 (talk) 10:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding RSS Feeds to Wikipedia

Is it possible to add RSS feeds to Wikipedia? If so, how do I do that? Allen (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I better clarify my question: Can I add an RSS feed about changes to an external page or website to Wikipedia? Allen (talk) 03:01, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes and no.
In principle, it's possible to add display of external RSS feeds to a MediaWiki site. This is done by writing MediaWiki "extensions" in PHP. There are plenty of such extensions out there. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RSS_Reader
On the downside, I've found the sophistication, coding quality, stability and developer support of these RSS extensions to be unusably low. I don't use any of them.
Another useful MediaWiki extension is the widget framework http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Widgets This makes it simple to embed chunks of HTML within wiki pages. With RSS -> HTML tools, it's then quite easy to achieve "RSS embedded within MediaWiki" This is how I'm doing it at present.
Now as to Wikipedia. This is probably a no - although you could raise it at WP:Village Pump (technical). There are several reasons.
WP is in some ways one of the crudest and simplest MediaWiki installations I know (mostly I work on intranet wikis) - everything is tailored towards high page-view volumes, and some aspects of management workflow, so many useful tools and extensions just aren't available. I doubt that you could find an RSS extension available.
WP policy is probably against such an external feed into a page, for much the same "self-contained encyclopedia" reasons that disfavour external links, and prevent the embedding of YouTube videos in favour of hosting via the WMF or not at all.
The spam risks for an incoming RSS feed are obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for the delayed response. I just saw your reply.
I have wanted to have an updated feed of my favorite CDs (just for example) from Listal.
I know the <rss> tag works on Intellipedia, but what will work here?
I will take your advice and ask at the Village Pump.
Allen (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Link to web.archive.org

Does the link to http://web.archive.org/web/20110718034619/http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/09/06/history_of_the_rss_fork really makes sense for users? You have to wait first to get redirected. Is there any direct link we can add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.11.182 (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it anywhere else on the web- it doesn't exist anymore and does provide very useful content, albeit it is frusterating. Maxasher (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

About-Rss Link

I removed a link to About-RSS dot com that was obviously added by the owner. The site has little content and is a simple one page site- no need for it to be linked on the Wiki entry. Maxasher (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

--

Sorry, did you noticed the directory (http://www.about-rss.com/directory.php)? It really seems to have a value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.11.182 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


If I'm doing this wrong, I apologize. I read the RSS page for help. It is in desperate need of a howto section.Aoeuus (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

XML schema for RSS 2.0

I did a Google search for "xml schema rss" and found this schema for RSS. 68.173.113.106 (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction in Definition

There appears to be a contradiction in how RSS feeds work. In the last 2 sentences in the last paragraph of the introduction, 2 opposite statements are made. First it says "The RSS reader checks the user's subscribed feeds regularly for new work," then in the next sentence it says "subscribe to websites such that all new content is pushed onto their browsers when it becomes available." Pushing data, and checking something regularly are two completely opposite concepts. Which do RSS feeds use? These sentences should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.147.90.2 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I am fairly certain RSS is polling and not interrupt based, or rather the feed is passive. The language should be changed, but it would be nice if the workflow could also be described--184.21.215.174 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RSS&diff=534446182&oldid=534032824) --184.21.215.174 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

No mention of Aaron Swartz

The MSM media claim he invented it, but see no mention of him here. Is that because it's a typical case of their imbecility? 76.180.168.166 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, he didn't invent it (as The New York Times obituary claims), but he was involved in maintaining and updating the spec and began participating in the RDF Core group in April 2001 (when he was still 14). Mindmatrix 00:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
[7] gives it as "a Creator of" and "helped create" rather than "inventor" or "sole creator". I would consider this pretty accurate (and I was involved in the same RSS at the time). Some of the best description of this is through the diveintomark site (linked), particularly the articles on RSS versioning and history. Boing Boing has also given pretty accurate, and more detailed, coverage of this.
The point is that Aaron didn't invent RSS, when RSS was a new format at version 0.90 from Netscape. He wasn't even particularly interested in RSS for itself, his interest was more in the field of RDF. As RDF needed a poster application, and RSS was already making use of it, it made sense to Aaron and others to use RSS as such a technology demonstrator. The result was RSS 1.0, the most developed RSS version and one based on a number of powerful standards like RDF and Dublin Core.
It's worth noting that RSS split badly around this time, with one version going off after a solo diva and the other following a collaborative and better thought-out approach. Aaron was a much-appreciated member and driving force behind the team effort. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you both. I guess it's an aspect of the world that Swartz chose not to continue in that such simple minded and distorted reports occur. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 11:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusing and hype-y section

The section RSS#Event Standard Syndication: Taking RSS to the Next Level seems a mixture of hype (especially the title) and incoherence. I don't have the knowledge to rewrite it, but someone should. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).