Re: Offering Multiple Feed Formats
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "rcade" <cadenhead@...> wrote:
>I believe it's hard to talk about a "resolution" in this situation.
> --- In email@example.com, "Randy Morin" <randy@> wrote:
> > +1 adding this to the profile
> Would you support a resolution as well, like the ones we've done
> endorsing the common feed icon and Feed Validator?
I would talk about suggestions instead.
The suggestion I usually provide is the following:
1. always use the latest feed version
For instance, if you are syndicating a feed as a RSS 0.91, RSS 0.92
and RSS 2.0 you are simply wasting your time.
Because RSS 2.0 is the natural evolution of the other releases, simply
use RSS 2.0 and you will obtain the same result with the bonus you are
not spreading confusion.
The same applies to Atom: be sure you are not using Atom 0.3 and Atom
1.0 for the same content.
2. choose between RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0 and Atom 1.0
At the end of the story, at least you should have to decide among 3
major formats: RSS 1.0, RSS 2.0 and Atom 1.0.
Each format has special features and unique specification thus you
"simply" need to use the one that better suit your needs.
Don't be scared about feed readers.
The 90% of them is compatibile with these 3 formats thus syndicate the
one you are more comfortable with, you better understand or offers the
features your feed really needs.
About the last sentence, I wrote a full article (in Italian) a couple
of years ago.
Probably it's outdated now, but I suppose it could be useful to
provide a short list of common choices for feed publisher, if applicable.
For example, would you syndicate a podcast? Format RSS 2.0 it's better
to use because... and so on.