Google Finally Moves Toward RSS Standard 212
declan writes "My News.com colleague Evan Hansen just got his hands on an internal email thread revealing that Google is planning to embrace RSS. Evan's co-authored News.com article quotes from the email (sent to Sergey Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt) confirming that Google is rethinking only supporting Atom. Slashdot covered Google's purchase of Pyra Labs and Blogger.com/Blogspot.com last year that made it a fan of the Atom standard. Does this news mean that RSS is now viewed as out of Dave Winer's control? Will RSS and Atom finally converge?"
You'd think... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You'd think... (Score:5, Informative)
There are some geek-muscles being flexed about in RDF/RSS and people want to maintain control over it (same with FOAF, which I am dealing with often) that is why the Atom guys came up with their own, it is a rewrite they came up with that addressed problems they had been reporting/asking for fixes for (or at least extensions for) for quite a while to no avail.
Anyway, it is a big pissing contest still, if google jumps in and picks a side, it is game over.
Re:You'd think... (Score:5, Informative)
An RFC does NOT have to be a standard, it does NOT have to be binding. It CAN be a memo about an idea that you want others to COMMENT on, it CAN be a proposal for which you are REQUESTING others people's COMMENTS.
Hence, the statement "RFC is not appropriate" is incorrect.
Re:You'd think... (Score:5, Informative)
I was not going to respond to this.. but just in case someone else might happen to think you are correct for some strange reason.
If you actually poke around in RFC's you might notice that languages generally don't have them (markup does, but XML which is what RDF/RSS/Atom is built on already has an RFC).
Poke around http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/ and see, you are generally trying to have top-level projects for RFC's, not a subproject.
RSS is a vocabulary built on XML and therefore would never warrant an RFC.
Re:You'd think... (Score:2, Informative)
XML is a tool. (Score:3, Interesting)
Some RFCs are standards published by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). Some are not.
Most of the standards document protocols of some sort. Some document tools used to describe protocols, and some of these are languages (ABNF, RPSL).
Some RFCs document protocols that use XML to represent their syntax.
Some of these RFCs are IETF standards.
Re:XML is a tool. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, not really; XML is a recommendation from the W3C. The W3C is not a standards body. It is a vendor consortia.
The W3C puts out specs that it expects vendors and developers to agree on and work with. If all goes well after some period of time then it may be worth moving the spec onto a standards body, such as ISO.
Sadly, the word "standard" has become a substitute for "specification. Hence you hear about the Java(tm) "standard", the Atom "standard", and so on. Everytime somebody puts something down on paper they say, "Hey, we have this new standard." But it makes for great marketing to say, 'Oh, we're all standards-based.'
Re:You'd think... (Score:3, Interesting)
that RFCs would really exclude these
Since RFCs can e'en apply to prose
and truly be to anything with ease.
That XML does not have one its own
shows limitations not with this process
Rather with those who thought to bring it forth
Without an RFC, XML's a mess.
And so to prove that RFCs stand tall
Do you think this [faqs.org] counts as a protocol?
Atom group approved at IETF (Score:3, Interesting)
FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:4, Insightful)
The way I use it, I have several sources (a couple of interesting blogs, a book review site, Slashdot, Fark, etc), it then refreshes every 30 minutes, and I can keep track on new posts from a single location. If I see an interesting article on one of the sites, then I go to the actual web page.
Plus, my RSS reader is inobtrusive enough that noone can see I'm actually monitoring goof-off sites.
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:5, Funny)
You mean there are a couple of interesting blogs?
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:2)
It's like saying that there aren't any interesting phone conversations.
My blog, when I kept one, was probably indecipherable to people who didn't know me. Strangers, while welcome to read if they (however unlikely) were amused, were not the target audience.
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:5, Insightful)
People! Your aggregator might be out of sync, not the website RSS feed.
If you update the sources every 5 minutes it is still better than reloading the whole site every 5 minutes (and some sites have update time policies eg every 10 mins)
The feed most likely comes from the same db and as so it is not outdated.
Useful ? well if you use a PDA over a GPRS link, it is really cool to have just headlines that consume a few bytes, instead of loading 20 websites with all the ads and gfx (could be megabytes)
I think it is a cool thing, and even if you do not have a decent aggregator you can sed and grep and awk it to assemble a desired format
just my 1cent opinion
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:4, Informative)
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:2)
If anybody knows of a KNewsTicker-like program that can run without KDE, TELL ME!!!
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:2)
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:2)
I rather like Bloglines. It polls all the sites itself (and its bot is polite and tells you how many subscribers the feed has, so you don't have to worry about losing that information because of a proxy), so I don't have to go round-robin all the time. (It's not really different from setting up an automatic poller, other than I don't feel guily about pinging a site all the time just for one little feed.)
It's not all that useful for Slashdot, being that I generally w
i'm quite proud of my custom newsfeeds websites (Score:2, Interesting)
my newsfeed site saves me a ton of time every day
check it out here: http://fooey.net/Newsfeeds.cfm [fooey.net]
just one big page with all the news sites I like where i can see at a glance anything new that pops up
i'm currently working on making it more database driven so I can search for those rouge articles you can never seem to find
something like this one that i'm working on for fark: http://fooey.net/Farkives/ [fooey.net]
Re:FYI (because I didn't know this) (Score:2)
and in other news.... (Score:5, Informative)
The working group will use experience gained with RSS (variably used as a name by itself and as an acronym for "RDF Site Summary", "Rich Site Summary", or "Really Simple Syndication") as the basis for a standards-track document specifying the model, syntax, and feed format.
The name of the group is ATOMPUB, so you see where the rest of the experience being considered comes from.
Atom? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Atom? (Score:5, Funny)
If we didn't keep reinventing the wheel then society would be plagued with unemployed wheel inventors with nothing to keep them busy. It would be a nightmare.
Re:Atom? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Atom? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the deficiency with RSS was lack of a consistent implementation. There were too many minor variations within the assorted RSS instances to guarantee compatibility from one to another. Atom had the advantage of being self-consistency.
Re:Atom? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're implementing your own parser, sure. The inconsistency gets problematic when you're trying to use software written by someone else to connect to software written by a third person.
Re:Atom? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's all fine and good, but there is a lot of content out there in newer (2.0) versions of RSS and now Atom that are not able to be rendered or are rendered poorly. This company has picked its "standar
XSL, anyone? (Score:2)
IMO, a news aggregator which can't already provide the ability to extend its reach via XSL is a poor tool. A sane developer would take the path of least surprise, implementing multiple formats by transforming them all to a single format, so they don't have to fuck around with the multiple formats in the real code.
But if you're stuck with someone else's system which can't parse RSS 2.0, you can obviously cheat by using something like the W3C's online XSL transformer [w3.org] to convert the 2.0 feeds to a format whi
Re:Atom? (Score:5, Funny)
A Proton and an Electron met up and decided to marry
Re:Atom? (Score:5, Informative)
As an RSS producer/consumer myself [memigo.com], the one thing I've always hated about RSS was the encoding of the description tag: some feeds escape any HTML included in description, some make the whole tag a big CDATA entity, and in any case there is no information provided as to the encoding of the included HTML. One of the side effects has been that if you are parsing RSS, you have to assume that description includes HTML. So, if you happen to have > or < or any other HTML-looking entities within description, your content will be mangled by the RSS-consuming code.
Re:Atom? (Score:2)
Re:Atom? (Score:2)
Re:Atom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish the parent post could be modded up even further. The problem with RSS is that the spec is sufficiently vague that it is practically guaranteed that any RSS parser you write will eventually encounter an RSS feed that is valid according to the spec but cannot be correctly parsed. It's a mess.
If you really want to open your eyes, download the Universal Feed Parser [diveintomark.org] and take a look at the enormous number of test cases that the author uses.
It's hoped that Atom will benefit from the tremendous amount of accumulated experience and knowledged gained by watching the failures of RSS. The analogy might be that Atom is to RSS as XHTML 2.0 is to HTML, with the exception that we hope it's not too late to adopt Atom (as is surely the case with XHTML 2.0).
Re:Atom? (Score:3, Informative)
That's already happened [intertwingly.net]. When Reuters launched its RSS feeds two weeks ago it was valid as per the RSS2.0 specification, but every news aggregator failed to display the stock-ticker names within the feed. Silent data loss [scripting.com].
What is unfortunate, from an RSS perspective, is that
Re:Atom? (Score:2)
Re:Atom? (Score:2)
Why did RSS even come into existance? Was not ICE already established? (NB: ICE was in production in 1998, before which it was submitted to the W3C, etc. See the ICE web site [icestandard.org] for more history.
People create new protocols that duplicate existing ones all the time. Unfortunately. It often comes down to politics and personalities.
That being said, it's possible to overc
RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! (Score:5, Insightful)
HOPE SO! Blogging has moved so fast that the tangled web of RSS protocols [ourpla.net] is confusing to RSS publishers and users alike.
Far more important than their individual features would be a single standard, so that publi7shing tools could stop bothering about compatibility issues and get on with features people care about.
Only Google has the power to create an RSS standard. Google, you're our only hope!
Re:RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! (Score:3, Interesting)
I've tried several of the clients and have tried to add as many news feeds as I could, but it all seems the same. Little content and just a link to a webpage. I could just go visit the webpage and see the same summaries.
I was expecting something like an AP newswire, with interesting stories from all over the world that I could not find on a standard websi
Re:RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! (Score:3, Interesting)
Amazon for example has a TON of feeds showing what the current top sellers are in virtually every category. Those at the top of the list are the top sellers and so forth.
That's one interesting way of imbedding information into a channel without actually adding textual information. I could forsee a script that takes that (easily parsable) data and turns it into a regularly updated graph. The same thing could be done with scr
Convergence is futile (Score:2, Redundant)
Also, given the different value systems of the RSS and Atom advocates, attempts at convergence are just likely to lead to deadlock.
Re:RSS - Please Converge On a Standard! (Score:3, Interesting)
Ho hum. (Score:2)
Question: what do you get if you merge Atom and RSS?
Answer: Atom.
So it sounds good to me. :-)
Are you insane?!? (Score:5, Funny)
If they do, then the [trekmode]Universe will come to an end![/trekmode]
Oh, wait, that's matter and antimatter. Never mind. False alarm. Boy, I'm embarrassed now.
Re:Are you insane?!? (Score:5, Funny)
I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS (Score:3, Interesting)
The world's major papers are shifting to RSS in a big way.
They've got audiences geekdom only dreams of.
People who want a free wire service will be disapointed.
but Moreover provides something pretty close.
And if google news went RSS (or stopped barring others from scraping it) then yes it'd be even closer.
but RSS/Atom is very handy if you've got a lot of sites to monitor.
Re:I'm more interested in Slashdot's RSS (Score:3, Informative)
RSS & Atom (Score:5, Informative)
RSS [wikipedia.org]
Atom [wikipedia.org] Note: These pages are a bit thin on detail but contain some useful links if you want to find out more
The weight of Google (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft, are you watching?
Re:The weight of Google (Score:2)
The underlying perspective (Score:2)
I left myself open to that one. Actually my intention was to point out that although Google "acquired" Atom in a sense, and might simply try to bury RSS, Google may be actually trying to figure out which technology is best.
It's not that either standard is proprietary, it's that Google seems to be coming at this not from the perspective of, "It's gonna be Atom, and dammit, we're gonna ram it
Who uses Atom?? (Score:4, Interesting)
AC
Re:Who uses Atom?? (Score:4, Informative)
Here's for example, ATOM feed from my account [livejournal.com] (don't read it, it's in ru-ru anyway), and if you change the username, you can get anyone's ATOM feed.
Re:Who uses Atom?? (Score:3, Informative)
methinks... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is probably a good choice. I mean, the W3C [w3.org] uses RSS to syndicate their page (see the bottom).
As the state, RSS is based on RDF [w3.org], which is an approved standard.
Based on the coverage at ZDNet [com.com], it seems that Yahoo! also goes RSS...
Why would the two merge when so many major players are leaning towards RSS already?
Re:methinks... (Score:2, Interesting)
Your post is a good example. What Dave Winer calls "RSS" (0.9x, 2.0) is not based on RDF. That would be "RSS 1.0". Right now, there are three standards going forward: RSS 1.0 (RDF-based), RSS 2.0 (Winer), and Atom.
Part of the problem is that Dave wields veto power in the RSS world, and he hasn't been responsive to others' needs. Like any good open project, his faults have prompted forks (two, in this case).
Re:methinks... (Score:2)
Re:methinks... (Score:5, Informative)
Headline is misleading. (Score:4, Insightful)
Dave Winer still controls RSS (Score:5, Interesting)
During the recent call for comments over changing the RSS 2.0 specification, Mark Pilgrim supplied a test case to show that it was a non-backwards-compatible change [diveintomark.org].
While Dave Winer is supposed to not control the RSS specification, he managed to delete Mark Pilgrim's comments as he has control over the server the comment system runs on.
Mark and Dave don't get on; that's no big secret. But Dave interfered with feedback because of his grudge against Mark. I don't think anybody should claim that RSS is not under Dave's control.
No one controls RSS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:3, Interesting)
What do we have to do to convince people that it isn't controlled by Dave Winer or anyone else?
For a start-off, when you ask for feedback on a proposed change to the specification, let people participate, even if Dave doesn't like them. Don't let him hide important feedback because of personal grudges.
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:4, Insightful)
Bye Bye Dave
-tomwsmf
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop lying by saying it is not?
The specification is released under a Creative Commons license and no ownership is claimed of the format embodied by the specification.
Yes, it is under a Creative Commons license. So what? perl is GPL'd, but no one would say p5p doesn't control it. Sure, there's some slight difference in the case of true ownership, but the real difference is that there is a recognized body that everyone looks to, and that body was created by Dave, and is controlled in no small measure by Dave.
The fact is that anyone who tries to improve upon or modify RSS is met with Dave's wrath. And this is precisely why Atom exists. There can never be convergence because Dave is still involved, and -- as evidence by the fact that he has several times over several years said he would no longer be invovled, but still is -- he likely forever will be.
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:2)
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:2)
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:5, Insightful)
-- Document and disclose the process for choosing members of the advisory board. Who issues the invitations? Who decides who to invite to be a member? If a member quits, who decides who will fill the empty slot?
-- Enlarge the board so that Dave has to convince more than one person in order to get his way.
-- Get people on the board who are not perceived by the public, correctly or incorrectly, as being Dave's cronies. It would be especially useful to get someone with technical stature in the business who has not been involved in the controversy.
-- Eventually, convince Dave to retire from the board. The "Charles Goldfarb" factor is real, and a lot of people will just not participate if it means interacting with Dave, however unfair or irrational that feeling may be.
(Comments similar to this post have been deleted by Dave from his message board.)
CC licensing is an insulting red herring (Score:5, Insightful)
I could take the CC-licensed RSS spec and change it however I wanted, and it wouldn't help things one bit because it wouldn't be an accepted standard any further than my own hard drive. It would just be another incompatible spec calling itself RSS 2.0 that developers have to deal with.
Re:No one controls RSS (Score:2)
Mr. Winer, tear down this wall!
Yes, because no one trusts Dave.
I asked them (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I asked them (Score:2)
So did I. So a friend & I wrote a scraper. And we enjoyed our headlines until he got the old "cease & desist" notice.
I hope they don't figure out I'm scraping a bunch of Google Groups, too...
needs XHTML for its product first (Score:2, Interesting)
hey Google, how about creating a website that is standards compliant, [w3.org] before worrying about RSS feeds and minor sundries, good to see the W3C reccomendations and all that hard work in creating standards in the web browser are not going to waste.
why bother ? its not like it matters right ?
Re:needs XHTML for its product first (Score:4, Insightful)
Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.petitiononline.com/googhtml/petition.ht ml [petitiononline.com]
Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too (Score:2)
Nah, that is not a usefull way to rank things when the content is what you are interested in (as opposed to whatever standard things comply with)
So.. bad plan for as far as I'm concerned.
Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too (Score:2)
Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too (Score:2)
Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too (Score:2)
How about they just rank pages based on the content? That way you wouldn't get highly polished useless fluff sites?
I know you must looooove XHTML, but try fitting some other standards in and see how bad it sounds:
"Petition Google to rank ActiveX-enabled pages more highly than others!"
Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too (Score:2)
Ranking pages based on the content is damn near impossible when the idiots who wrote the page have no idea how to properly mark one up. The best you can do is strip the tags and use the text.
I think the idea is pretty good. It might encourage people to mark up their pages more semantically, and that might in turn lead to better ways to search.
Re:Petition google to rank XHTML pages highly too (Score:2)
ditch Atom (Score:2, Interesting)
Atom is simply wasting space at this point. Sure, the RSS spec sucks. I can't even tell you exactly what an RSS feed is supposed to look like or what all the different versions are. And Dave Winer can't write a well-defined spec to save his life (apparently doesn't understand ISO8601 dates, or Unicode, or that XML defaults to UTF-8). (He views this as a feature, not a bug.)
But in a few minutes I can write a p
Google and RSS - the full story (Score:2, Informative)
Pretty handy.
Whats the best free/open aggregator? (Score:2)
I'm curious about the best aggregators for all the OS's
Re:Whats the best free/open aggregator? (Score:3, Informative)
I like Amphetadesk [disobey.com] myself though. It basically combines your feeds into a simple webpage and views on whatever browser/OS choice you use. (Well, Windows, MacOS and Linux at least)
RSS - A broader view (Score:4, Interesting)
This is rich... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah yes. Let's translate the first sentence, "RSS 2.0 format is by far the most widely used format. There was a time when it looked like things would go my way, but then people started to use a competing syndication system, largely due to Google"
The line about RSS deserving respect from anyone much less Google just cracks me up. Regardless of which is "better," Google made a business decision to focus on one. RSS deserves nothing from Google or anyone else. It's a specification for crying out loud.
Keeping this in mind, let's now translate the second sentence, "I deserve Google's respect, and I'm not getting it."
That sounds about right. If you are so tied to your creation that you cannot seperate yourself from it then you need take a step back, take a deep breath, and avoid making decisions for your baby until it, and you, have matured.
-Adam
Has anyone noticed the irony (Score:5, Funny)
What's in it for me? (Score:3, Insightful)
A few others in this thread have asked a similar question but the answer always seems to do with how its beneficial to the blogger or content provider. Now this is important of course but as a geek I have learned to be wary of such arguments, the first time I fell for it I ended up with blinking text in my browser. Maybe I'm too cynical but I'm comfortable being cautious and indeed a little skeptical of the latest and greatest technological innovations.
That being said: What will Atom do for me, Joe Blogreader, that the defacto standard RSS does not? Feeds and aggregators have changed how I use the net, my bookmarks menu has shrunk significantly and I'm on fewer mailing lists. What does Atom have to offer ME that I should bug my content providers to offer Atom feeds in addition to or in place of RSS?
Godwin's Law finished this already (Score:3, Funny)
RSS is a hack (Score:3, Insightful)
But RSS is a polling mechanism.
I'd much rather see something like the IRC protocol or NNTP used, where the publisher posts one message and it propagages through a network of servers to everyone interested. The way it is now, if a million people subscribe to your RSS feed, that's a million aggregators polling every 15 minutes. Ouch.
Re:Now that Google is Embracing It (Score:5, Interesting)
The RSS 2.0 specification is frozen [harvard.edu] and no new development is allowed under the RSS name. The specification states that any new development must happen in namespaces or in new specifications with new names. Funnily enough, when people actually do that (with Atom, and with "funky" feeds), they are still criticised for it by the people who wrote that part of the spec.
Re:Now that Google is Embracing It (Score:2)