|This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details.|
|Threads older than 100 days may be archived by.|
- To discuss rss syndication feeds from wikipedia, visit Wikipedia:Syndication.
XML schema for RSS 2.0
Contradiction in Definition
There appears to be a contradiction in how RSS feeds work. In the last 2 sentences in the last paragraph of the introduction, 2 opposite statements are made. First it says "The RSS reader checks the user's subscribed feeds regularly for new work," then in the next sentence it says "subscribe to websites such that all new content is pushed onto their browsers when it becomes available." Pushing data, and checking something regularly are two completely opposite concepts. Which do RSS feeds use? These sentences should be clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I am fairly certain RSS is polling and not interrupt based, or rather the feed is passive. The language should be changed, but it would be nice if the workflow could also be described--22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RSS&diff=534446182&oldid=534032824) --126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
No mention of Aaron Swartz
- No, he didn't invent it (as The New York Times obituary claims), but he was involved in maintaining and updating the spec and began participating in the RDF Core group in April 2001 (when he was still 14). Mindmatrix 00:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
-  gives it as "a Creator of" and "helped create" rather than "inventor" or "sole creator". I would consider this pretty accurate (and I was involved in the same RSS at the time). Some of the best description of this is through the diveintomark site (linked), particularly the articles on RSS versioning and history. Boing Boing has also given pretty accurate, and more detailed, coverage of this.
- The point is that Aaron didn't invent RSS, when RSS was a new format at version 0.90 from Netscape. He wasn't even particularly interested in RSS for itself, his interest was more in the field of RDF. As RDF needed a poster application, and RSS was already making use of it, it made sense to Aaron and others to use RSS as such a technology demonstrator. The result was RSS 1.0, the most developed RSS version and one based on a number of powerful standards like RDF and Dublin Core.
- It's worth noting that RSS split badly around this time, with one version going off after a solo diva and the other following a collaborative and better thought-out approach. Aaron was a much-appreciated member and driving force behind the team effort. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Confusing and hype-y section
The section RSS#Event Standard Syndication: Taking RSS to the Next Level seems a mixture of hype (especially the title) and incoherence. I don't have the knowledge to rewrite it, but someone should. - Jmabel | Talk 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)