So about all this
RSS vs. Feeds
naming brouhaha, what can I say?
I love RSS. I've been banging on about
RSS like a crazy
man for last two and half years. But emotions have no place in this debate.
When I first heard about the
team considering calling their new syndication feature 'web feeds' I have to
admit my heart sunk just a little. I love RSS - I'm not exaggerating...I
actually have an emotional attachment to the brand - and that's the problem.
I thought I'd sleep on it - read a few opinions, see where they took me (arguments for and against are compiled below).
My conclusion is this: the arguments for the RSS name are emotionally driven and
its supporters are emotionally attached to the brand to the point that they've
lost sight of the end goal.
If you really love RSS and you want to give it the best possible chance of it
being used be the majority - not a minority - of web users, we have to use a
term that makes sense to non-geeks. RSS is not that term.
Browsers are not called HTML viewers. We
use email not a ISAPI/SMPT.
Google news provides news 'feeds', via
RSS and Atom.
Yahoo and Bloglines call them Feeds.
If RSS is so popular, why does it need to be
fixed? If it's too complicated, why is it so popular?
'Feed' is an
easier term to understand - more descriptive.
I'll still use the RSS word, unless I'm
the company of my non-geek friends.
RSS isn't going away, it is becoming
invisible to the user, that's all.
The following posts make the arguments above: