Re: Which format?
Danny Ayers <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.syndication.rss.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:57:43 -0000, Richard Gaskin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm considering publishing my first RSS feed. I'd rather pick just one > format to publish in -- which one has the broadest support among RSS > reader software? Are there reasons I should consider other formats > than the most popular? Atom isn't yet that widely adopted, the spec isn't yet finished (when it is it will probably be a good first choice). Virtually all readers can handle both RSS 1.0 and RSS 2.0. If there are dedicated syndication tools that don't handle both, they are more likely to be able to use RSS 2.0. But all standard RDF tools (not just syndication-oriented) can read RSS 1.0, which pushes the balance the other way. RSS 0.91 are* popular but most new feeds/tools target 1.0, 2.0, Atom. (* there are two versions of RSS 0.91, indistiguishable but for their incompatibility). It mostly depends on how and what you intend to publish. Some people consider the syntax of RSS 1.0 too difficult for manual generation - others would say that life's too short to be manually generating feeds, that's what computers are for. RSS 2.0 is certainly a simpler syntax if you only want to publish simple material. If you plan on publishing richer data (outside of HTML-in-content), now or in the future then RSS 1.0 is probably your best bet - see [1] for why. Ah, wait a moment, this is the rss-dev list. Forget what I said - use RSS 1.0. Definitely. Or flip a coin ;-) Cheers, Danny. [1] http://dlib.anu.edu.au/dlib/december04/hammond/12hammond.html -- http://dannyayers.com Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rss-dev/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/