Draft: started • Tagged /atom, /rss
My feeds are Atom feeds.
Everyone with knowledge agrees that Atom is technically superior to RSS.
Unfortunately, many people continued to write and choose RSS,
Most of the differences are surface-level, or in practice not a problem:
<description> is text or HTML? But what few realise is that some of the differences matter.
So let’s talk about the cases that matter.
Précis: you can’t reliably use characters like < or & in RSS titles.
Content management systems normally allow headings to contain markup;
Atom defines something called text construct,
In RSS… well, not even content gets encoding semantics,
Suppose you want to encode this title:
All about the <xmp> element How are you going to do it?
In Atom, you have three clear choices:
<title type="text">
All about the <xmp> element
</title> <title type="html">
All about the <code>&lt;xmp></code> element
</title> <title type="xhtml"> <div xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> All about the <code><xmp></code> element </div> </title>
TODO: survey RSS readers to find out how they handle all of these cases.
Hard mode challenge: <_>::v::<_>, a real title I used.
RSS bad, Atom good. Capiche? 😁
Heuristics, bad for interop, &c. &c.
I feel like there was a third Difference that Matters that I had in mind at some point. Maybe I’ll remember it before I publish.
I must, in good faith, mention podcasts.
Since this stuff is largely from 20–25 years ago,
Rough timeline:
So I want to blame Apple.
RSS is a mess. Podcast RSS is even more of a mess.