RSS 2.0 vs. Atom 1.0 - Which is the better syndication format?
Posted on 08 April 2008 in Webmasters and Web Tools
by William Lau, Affiliate
Syndication is BIG nowadays. And let's face it, most of us can't live without it.
So the question is, which is the better feed format? Atom 1.0 or RSS 2.0?
Although there are several other formats out there (actually previous versions), to make it simple, we shall compare the two most common formats.
In the beginning, there was only RSS, short for Real Simple Syndication. Today, the acronym is synonymous with web syndication as we know it.
RSS 2.0 came along and was widely accepted- even Wordpress used it as their default format (Blogger is now on Atom). However, it has several drawbacks, like its inability to differentiate between plain text and escaped HTML, filtering any well-formed XML markups, and using an older date format.
Simply put, all these make RSS 2.0 very hard to work with (as a programmer).
What many don't know is that Atom (currently 1.0) was created out of frustration with the limitations found in RSS 2.0, so it is in fact superior to all other formats out there.
To start, it has standardized 'Autodiscovery', a feature which alerts your browser or your feed reader automatically to its presence. RSS also has this, but it isn't the same over the board so you might have some problems with some RSS feeds.
More than that, the Atom Autodiscovery feature contains a 'self' pointer, allowing your feed reader subscribe automatically to it.
Atom feeds come in two parts (summary and content), for greater viewing flexibility. That said, the reader will always know if he/she is reading a part of an article or the whole thing. It will also note if there are any external content like audio, video etc.
RSS 2.0 feeds only come in one part, which could sometimes be the summary alone, further confusing readers.
Also, Atom 1.0 feeds are more detailed and includes a title, a unique identifier and a last-updated timestamp. RSS 2.0 feeds however only requires a title, link, and description. And they are all optional (and could be left blank).
Overall, Atom 1.0 is more detailed and feature-rich than RSS 2.0. But due to a number of factors, it remains underestimated.
1. The RSS name itself has a significant effect, with many people thinking it is the only syndication format out there.
2. The version number may have people thinking that RSS 2.0 is more advanced than Atom 1.0.
3. Many sites publish exclusively in RSS 2.0 format. CNN, BBC, to name a few.
4. Many sites publish in both formats, which leads to problems 1 and 2.
But now you know which is better, so don't make the same mistake again.
So the question is, which is the better feed format? Atom 1.0 or RSS 2.0?
Although there are several other formats out there (actually previous versions), to make it simple, we shall compare the two most common formats.
In the beginning, there was only RSS, short for Real Simple Syndication. Today, the acronym is synonymous with web syndication as we know it.
RSS 2.0 came along and was widely accepted- even Wordpress used it as their default format (Blogger is now on Atom). However, it has several drawbacks, like its inability to differentiate between plain text and escaped HTML, filtering any well-formed XML markups, and using an older date format.
Simply put, all these make RSS 2.0 very hard to work with (as a programmer).
What many don't know is that Atom (currently 1.0) was created out of frustration with the limitations found in RSS 2.0, so it is in fact superior to all other formats out there.
To start, it has standardized 'Autodiscovery', a feature which alerts your browser or your feed reader automatically to its presence. RSS also has this, but it isn't the same over the board so you might have some problems with some RSS feeds.
More than that, the Atom Autodiscovery feature contains a 'self' pointer, allowing your feed reader subscribe automatically to it.
Atom feeds come in two parts (summary and content), for greater viewing flexibility. That said, the reader will always know if he/she is reading a part of an article or the whole thing. It will also note if there are any external content like audio, video etc.
RSS 2.0 feeds only come in one part, which could sometimes be the summary alone, further confusing readers.
Also, Atom 1.0 feeds are more detailed and includes a title, a unique identifier and a last-updated timestamp. RSS 2.0 feeds however only requires a title, link, and description. And they are all optional (and could be left blank).
Overall, Atom 1.0 is more detailed and feature-rich than RSS 2.0. But due to a number of factors, it remains underestimated.
1. The RSS name itself has a significant effect, with many people thinking it is the only syndication format out there.
2. The version number may have people thinking that RSS 2.0 is more advanced than Atom 1.0.
3. Many sites publish exclusively in RSS 2.0 format. CNN, BBC, to name a few.
4. Many sites publish in both formats, which leads to problems 1 and 2.
But now you know which is better, so don't make the same mistake again.
Comments (2)
pepoluan (Visitor) said:
12 July 2008
hello (Visitor) said:
05 June 2008
Post a comment