Atomic Pedantics

Apparently, Atom 1.0 syntax spec is now at the end of the runway. Whether it takes flight or loudly ignored, they don't seem to realize that pedantic assertions like the below undermines their work:

The RSS 2.0 specification is copyrighted by Harvard University and is frozen. No significant changes can be made and it is intended that future work be done under a different name; Atom is one example of such work. – RSS 2.0 and Atom Compared

They have taken words in the roadmap section of the RSS spec and used it to portray RSS 2.0 as a deadend road when they are fully aware that those very words came into existance to encourge those who were undermining RSS 2.0 to either vent their harmful creativity elsewhere or redirect them to more constructive activities such as building modules like Apple, Microsoft, and Yahoo are doing now.

Under payload comparison between Atom 1.0 and RSS 2.0:

Escaped HTML is ugly…RSS 2.0 cannot contain actual well-formed XML markup…

Sillyness followed by misinformation. HTML is not XML which is why HTML had to be escaped. They also failed to note that there are XHTML embedding issues.

Under Digital Signature/Encryption:

RSS 2.0 can be encrypted or signed like any other web content, if treated as a bag of bits.
Rules for applying standard XML Encryption and XML Digital Signature on entries are included in Atom 1.0. Alternatively, the feed can be encrypted or signed, like RSS 2.0, as a bag of bits.

More half-truths. Both mentioned specs can be used in RSS 2.0 just fine.

Under Deployment:

RSS 2.0 is widely deployed and Atom 1.0 not at all.

Well, I am happy to see that they just need to grow up instead of needing therapy.

<

p dir=”ltr”>Most of the differences can be easily added to RSS 2.0 as modules and the remainders are meaningless in practice. If they want Atom to take off, they need to introduce equivalent RSS 2.0 modules. Do they realize that? Their display of pedantics makes me doubt it.

Advertisements