Talk:RSS/Archive 1

message: 68.14.170.144 Said they were confused about the article, swore, and was sarcastic.  210.187.3.130 posted wikispam here.  What to do about this?  I don't know, because I don't know who to contact to report stuff like this.  Emailing first author of article. --Mr alex hall 00:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  heckler, wikispammer 

message: I have a NPOV concern about the following passage from the usage section:
"As the mainstream media attempts to realize the full potential of RSS, the new media is utilizing RSS by bypassing traditional news sources. Consumers and journalists are now able to have news constantly fed to them instead of searching for it."
Seems to be a dig at the "old media" on the part of a member of "the new media."  Also, the second sentence seems far too much a plug.  Not very encyclopedic...  We are to inform, not to advocate. - 207.166.7.200, March 4, 2006.
:I agree.  --Ben Houston 00:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Concerns 

message: I also think that we need to expand on Atom related info as well. for semi-techie users such as myself, the tussle between Atom and RSS 'specifications' is of historical significance (Article: (Guardian.com) RSS and Atom peace proposal), especially with most sites starting for offer both the feeds.
More info on AtomEnabled Alliance
--Mayuresh Kadu (India) 03:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atom 

message: List of news aggregators was  a web directory so I have added it here. It is good work, well done and well worth it, and is similar to the EL's at BitTorrent, SqueakBox 20:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
:That list does not belong on this page, so I've reverted edits to both pages. News aggregator may be a more appropriate page to move it to, though I really think your problem is with the content itself and not its location. If Wikipedia is not a web directory, how does moving said web directory to another page solve the problem? Maybe you should edit the page in place to what's notable, and then merge if necessary. --Dtcdthingy 01:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web directory 

message: Anyone know of plans for Wikipedia to support RSS?  I would love to be able to access my watchlist via RSS.  --Dan East 00:19, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
An interesting idea, but with 2,800+ articles watched personally it would be hopelessly impractical. Suggest it somewhere at the Wikipedia:Village pump, SqueakBox 00:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Of course one could always set up a much smaller watchlist on a dormant sock account. The more I think about it the more I like it, though it might make edit wars more fraught than they often already are, SqueakBox 15:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
I just had the same idea of having an RSS feed of my watchlist. It would be a very nice idea to follow up on violators and act quickly to revert those violations. Is it allowed to have a script that downloads my watchlist on the hour to transform that into my very own rss feed? --Anthony Liekens 09:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More can be read here and  --Anthony Liekens 09:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempting to gather conversation and support for implementation at meta:Syndication_feeds.  Please, go there and add a note in favor and what you'd like in the feed.  Here 22:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think a more instantly useful RSS would be 'did you know...?' entries/current events/featured articles from the front page.
*Guys, as others above have tried to suggest, this is a great place to make suggestions if you want to ensure that they never get implemented. On the other hand, if you want someone to listen, try meta:Syndication_feeds or Wikipedia:Village pump. · rodii · 16:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia RSS support 

message: User:Bastawhiz has created a stupid duplicate article "What's RSS?". I don't think there are much useful information, but feel free to merge it, if needed. --minghong 03:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: appended to article, needs cleanup ∴ here…♠ 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging "What's RSS?" 

message: I'm uncomfortable with this sentance under "History":
This version became known as RSS 0.9. It was basically a clone of Channel Definition Format, with a few key differences: it wasn't published by a Microsoft employee, so it wasa a lot better.
Sounds to me like a dig at Microsoft. Doesn't seem very NPOV or encylopedic to me. What does everyone else think? - Robert
::This has been fixed (as at beginning 2006). It helps if you date comments like this which I think got left July 2005? --BozMotalk 15:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A Lot Better" 

message: I'm starting a new website and I'm wondering if I should use RSS.
How do I do it? --Gbleem 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I do it? New Webmaster 

message: I know that this seems like nitpicking, but in the second line "RSS is used by (among other things) news websites," don't you think "news websites" should like to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_website instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Website? I realise that it would mean changing the link to direct to a stub, but I still think it's for informative than the current choice of link
a5y 11:04 09 March 2006 GMT
Please don't link to stubs, this is a lost of time for readers. Alcalazar 10:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions For Specific Edits 

message: I do not know what RSS feeds are. I feel that the article should include a simpler summary or maybe examples.
--Splendour 2:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need more info 

message: Does anyone find the new section on future versions pointless (and almost incoherent)? And I question the need for a whole new example to illustrate "icon misuse". It seems that the main point could be incoporated into the history section and that whole passage deleted. I thought I would ask here instead of editing, though. Thoughts? · rodii · 14:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK then. Deleting. · rodii · 05:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future versions, icon misuse 

message: RSS stands for Rich Site Summary, not "Really Simple Summary."  But now that some moron has locked the article, I guess millions of people will be misinformed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.206.66 (talk) 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article body makes it amply clear that, in the years since its initial meaning of "RDF Site Summary,"  "RSS" has been given several different meanings. The article summary gives the current meaning, "Really Simple Syndication" based on the currently most-used RSS dialect, RSS 2.0. This article has, unfortunately, been vandalized in the past by unregistered editors -- that's why it is locked. Anyone who spends the five minutes required to register as a Wikipedia editor can indeed edit it. betsythedevine (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abbreviation Incorrect 

message: RSS is certainly not a file format or a protocol.  if anything it is a standard for content delivery.  why would somone who doesn't understand the article take it upon themselves to define the term?  XML is not a file format either.  if i can type a document in notepad that has XML or RSS structure, the file format is plain text.  furthermore, RSS 0.91 doesn't even use XML Mahumphrey 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The RSS 0.91 specification that is linked from the article says 'Files must be 100% valid XML'. It also describes RSS as a syndication format.  If editors felt strongly that the article was misnamed, I suppose it could be called 'RSS (syndication format)', but I don't see the urgency. I think the Talk discussion about RSS being a protocol must be ancient history from 2005; not much point in responding to that since the word 'protocol' is not used to refer to RSS in the current article. EdJohnston 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  File format not Protocol 

message: The test reads "In August 2005, Israeli student Jonathan Avidan unilaterally launched a project to create "RSS 3"[10]. It failed to gain backing from anyone in the RSS industry."
If it's a one-man project from a non-notable individual that appears to have failed to gain any note, why do we bother mentioning it? Middenface 12:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--also the source cited doesn't meet Wikipedia's standard. So I took it out. betsythedevine 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jonathan Avidan 

message: I heavily redid the RSS intro a month ago to better explain web feeds, but now I realize that should all go under web feeds. However, it's important that users coming to this page find out what RSS is, and for most people, that means learning what web feeds are in general. Should it be left up to the user to think to follow the web feed link for more explanation? I'm thinking of putting a note to users that they probably will want to read web feed. Anyone aware of standard practice here? 
I've handled the intro, but I think the rest of the page should be edited to put web feed info not specific to RSS in web feed.--Apantomimehorse 01:28, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make this specific to RSS; move all generic 'web feed' info to 'web feed' article 

message: I'm removing these two lists from this article--there's no need to (partially) duplicate here information that much more fully available elsewhere:  List of search engines, News aggregator, and Category:Blog search engines. Just as an example of why such lists don't belong here--somebody just created a list with only two "RSS search engines" on it, one of them Technorati, a blog search engine that does not rely on RSS search for its data. betsythedevine 13:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggregators, RSS search engines 

message: A spam link that I removed from 'Other articles' last week has just come back (freshthinkingbusiness.com). It seems to me that a section as vaguely named as 'Other articles' will be an irresistible draw for bad links. If there were support for eliminating that section I'd try to rewrite all the useful material found there and incorporate it in the regular text of the article. EdJohnston 15:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace 'Other articles' section with new text? 

message: Editors regularly clean out undiscussed links from this article.  Please discuss here if you want a link not to be cleaned out regularly.  (You can help!)
EdJohnston 04:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About modules. This is a bunch of links both in the article and references. Is this useful? Jupition 10:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring just to the section called 'Modules'? I saw that being added, and I wondered if it was legit, but I think that RSS namespaces are important.  Do you know enough about modules to improve this part? EdJohnston 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: There is an article for readers. The right place is at  RSS Readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jahowk (talk • contribs) 14:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd recommend against.  The page has, in my opinion, objectional amounts of advertising.  Further, how-to related information is not a focus of this project.  Thanks for asking! ;)  See also, WP:EL (advertising) , WP:NOT (how-to) ∴ here…♠ 02:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second the motion. The front page of W3 Schools seems to be more than 80% advertising. The factual material is offered in paragraph-size chunks, all surrounded by further ads. EdJohnston 02:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay.  I won't add it.  comment added by turbov21 April 30, 2007
=== External Link - A well written article ===
Found an interesting article that I think would add to the topic. It's a beginners guide, and is well written and geared towards a non-technical audience. It's not a how-to for producing feeds, but focuses on how to use RSS yourself etc.
* A Beginners Guide to Using RSS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar0 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss links here 

message: Found an interesting article that I think would add to the topic. It's a beginners guide, and is well written and geared towards a non-technical audience. It's not a how-to for producing feeds, but focuses on how to use RSS yourself etc.
* A Beginners Guide to Using RSS  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caesar0 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Link - A well written article 

message: This is a very minor part, but I believe it should be edited. If you hover your mouse over the big feed icon, it says the icons is in IE 7 and Firefox. Shouldn't Opera be included (it is adapted in Opera)?
Moronicles 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: A directory of links useful for finding an RSS feed reader for a chosen operating system (instead of linking various seperate readers). No, I am not affiliated, I merely came across this site on Yahoo Answers and thought it would be a very useful resource for anyone looking for a feed reader.
Would this not make a valid addition? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  62.136.196.109  (talk • contribs)  15 November, 2006.
: The present article is the place for explaining the RSS file format, as the name suggests. Helping people choose a feed reader does not have much to do with the file format, but might be considered on the Web feeds page. However that page already has a link to the 'RSS Compendium', located at http://allrss.com/rssreaders.com. The RSS Compendium is supposed to help you choose a feed reader, and it must be reasonably popular because it gets 19,700 Google hits. By comparison, rssformat.com gets only 252 Google hits. At present, rssformat.com does not seem to fill a need better than the many alternatives. EdJohnston 21:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSSFormat.com 

message: Well is it? It doesn't really add too the article, which talks about the RSS file format. iamthebob(talk|contribs) 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the image is about to be speedy-deleted from Commons because of copyright issues. If anyone wants to save it, they would need to negotiate with the person who nominated it, or substitute a screenshot from a FOSS RSS reader. I personally don't object to the inclusion of the screenshot but I'd like to know the exact instructions for making it. E.g. I was not aware that out-of-the-box Thunderbird could do feed-reading, so there must be a plugin involved. EdJohnston 03:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thunderbird Screenshot - is it really necessary? 

message: * Add RSS to My Watchlist Special Page (please) Ethicalhacker 16:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests 

message: Although RSS wasn't originally intended for this purpose, it has very much been adopted by the podcasting community as a convenient method of syndicating audio content.  Podcasts are continuing to increase in popularity, and podcast RSS feeds are already a significant percentage of all RSS feeds out there.  The page should be altered to reflect that RSS no longer just syndicates "frequently updated pages, such as blogs or news feeds", but also publishes audio and video content, such as podcasts and vidcasts.
With this in mind, I've added a link to a very hard to find specification for the iTunes specification for podcast RSS feeds. Robert Rapplean 17:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely missing any mention of podcasts 

message: There is still stuff here from 2005, and there are comments about issues that are long gone. Does anyone object if I move old comments to an archive page? I would like to delete all the unsigned comments; they can be recovered from the page history if needed. I would not move any active threads. EdJohnston 22:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no-one objected, I went ahead and created Talk:RSS (file format)/Archive1. I moved old threads there in Werdnabot style, and kept only those threads in which new comments were added later than 1 Sept 2006. Comments not signed by their authors were deleted unless they were key to a conversation, but they can still be found in the page history.  Very long threads now only go back to 1 January, 2006. See archive for earlier. EdJohnston 03:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive talk page? 

message: Came across this site TheJackyl.com after browsing digg.com. Definately a worthwhile resource for someone looking for the interworkings of RSS and an all in one RSS directory/reader. 
Tommyboy1985 01:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding yet another directory of feeds does not seem relevant to explaining the RSS *file format*.  EdJohnston 14:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TheJackyl.com 

message: By removing tutorials, you are wrong. Tutorial is the kind of link we have to add to the article. You should look at the body of the article itself that is full of external links and I believe there is some spams here we should carefully study. Jahowk 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove the right links 

message: Here is an interesting paper describing risks of using RSS and Atom feeds. 
http://www.cgisecurity.com/papers/HackingFeeds.pdf  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.121.176 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS Security Risks= 

message: Social network is heavily based on RSS feeds and so, the connection is more than evident. But if you like to remove the link, this is not a real problem. Jahowk 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About social network 

message: I'm missing references to NewsML which is a format used by the major news organisations for distributing news. NewsML is adopted by the IPTC (International Press Telecommunications Council) while I do not think RSS is.
Here are some links:
NewsML web site
Some very few notes I've found that "compares" NewsML and RSS
I do not know much about the topic but it seems to me that NewsML maybe is more for the professional market (b2b) while RSS perhaps is targeted more at individuals. Maybe it does not make sense to compare the two at all?
John Clarigon 10:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this format have any civilian end-users? It seems to be heavily protected, coprighted, and limited by agreements, so I wonder how much it will go into general use. And why is it being offered while RSS is already there. Do they consider RSS too open? EdJohnston 21:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the normal way should be to write an article to this format, as we have to link to RSS websites here. Jahowk 13:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference to NewsML 

message: Since the article has a history section, external links to RSS history either are used to prove the validity of the article, or are useless. My opinion is the two history links are references and should be moved in this section. Different advices? Jahowk 12:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving history links to references 

message: The material I removed is found word-for-word in a 22 December 2006 article by Ed Oswald, at  , copyright 2006 BetaNews, Inc.  If anyone wants to rewrite the section in their own words, they are welcome to. EdJohnston 03:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio removed: 'Patent Issues' 

message: Do we want to keep the gigantic template that is added at the bottom of the article by  the  template?  
	
Types	
Audio Podcasts •
Autocasting •
Blogcasting •
Commercial Podcast Networks •
Mediacasting •
Mobilecast •
Narrowcasting •
Peercasting •
Video Podcasts •
Vodcasting
Genres	
Art •
Automobiles •
Business •
Children •
Comedy •
Computers •
Educational •
Family •
Food and Drink •
Health and Fitness •
Humor •
Macinstosh •
Movies and Television •
Music •
Political •
Religon •
Science and Medicine •
Science Fiction •
Society and Culture •
Sports •
Talk •
Technology •
Travel •
Video Games •
WebComics
Famous People	
Adam Curry •
Chris DiBona •
John Edwards •
Ricky Gervais •
Penn Jillette •
Garrison Keillor •
Leo Laporte •
Irene McGee •
Stephen Merchant •
Barack Obama •
Dave Winer •
Molly Wood •
Others
Related Articles	
Aggregator •
Godcasting •
History of Podcasting •
MP3 •
Push Technology •
RSS •
Social Podcasting •
Uses of Podcasting
On my screen it adds 2.8 inches to the length of the page. This template was added today by User:Ganfon. In my view, the 'Genres' are a particular waste of space, because many of these categories are empty.  (Empty categories are at risk of deletion). Please discuss here if you have an opinion.  Without a consensus here supporting the inclusion of the Podcasting template, I think it should be removed. EdJohnston 22:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree and have removed it for now.  It might be appropriate later once some more folks have worked on it and have cleaned it up.  From its history, only one editor appears to have edited it and it was just created today.  It's a good idea but I think it needs a lot of polishing before being placed on a bunch of articles.  --ElKevbo 23:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I did not make the template, and agree it can be smaller. Personally I don't think size is that big of a deal, but anyway, I will agree that genres can go.  i also added the template on several other page.  I will state that I don't think it should be removed until a replacment/ re-done template is completed.Ganfon 01:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I did create the template and was wondering why it was changed, but can see your points. However, I created it based on the fact that those categories and incomplete issues were to be fixed with the aggressiveness of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Podcasting members. Maybe, in time - the usefulness of the genres, especially will be valued as those categories grow. Thanks for taking the time to fix it Ganfon. BrianZ(talk) 14:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Coincedently, the template I created was no bigger than any other table template I've seen on Wikipedia. Such as .BrianZ(talk) 14:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gigantic podcasting template 

message: None of the citations in the section "RSS Creation" appear to verify Ramanathan V. Guha's authorship. (sorry for not posting this before, I got distracted after adding the tag) --Random832(tc) 18:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cite check 

message: The detailed early history of who invented what web syndication format element when has become a matter of interest and dispute. The same kind of problems cropping up in the article about Podcasting were largely solved when somebody created a separate article for History of podcasting. This seems like a possible solution here, so I moved (essentially copied) historical text from this article to History of web syndication technology‎. Another possible benefit of the change is that it should prevent a Wikipedia fork in the history, so that somebody with a new citation adds to info in this article but doesn't realize that an incorrect version still lurks in a different article. My intention is good, please don't flame me. Please discuss if you do or don't think the separate article is a good idea, and if so how much of the history from this article should get moved there. betsythedevine 14:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having a separate article is a good idea. I agree with your recent removal of stuff from the RSS article and moving it to History of web syndication technology. The history that remains here currently is (I think) approximately the right amount of material, but it is choppy reading, and it's more like a blow-by-blow than a real historical summary. I'd favor a higher-level overview in the RSS article, discussing the benefit to the user of the various innovations, with no attempt to minutely assign credit, but perhaps using the same amount of space as now. Also what about the engineering tradeoffs that were made along the way. E.g. what motivated the choice of XML for the format?  The present article makes the final RSS format chosen seem arbitrary. EdJohnston 17:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move detailed early history to a separate article 

message: I have recommended merging Attention stream into RSS. Chevinki 01:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge suggestion 

message: Usually when I know very little about a subject, I come to Wikipedia for a good overview. This article was disappointing. 
How do the pieces fit together? Does the RSS reader typically poll the site providing the feed? Does the sitr providing the feed typically create the outgoing feed for each request, or cache it periodically? If my reader polls the feeding site periodically, how does it tell which items are new, and which were seen before? Are these even the right questions to be asking?
Instead, this article has a lot of history and arcana that I just don't care about right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.174.140.32 (talk) 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well do edit remembering Wikipedia:Attribution, ie all material should be sourced from a reliable source. I dont actually know if your questions are answerable, lots of sites make up RSS feeds and they do say in individual ways for the most part from what I can see, SqueakBox 18:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree: Article is a Dissapointment 

message: * Aspects of the Mass Media. Short essay on the mass media; its history and development.
:I don't see that this belongs in the RSS article.  The citation you have proposed looks like a personal blog, it has no references, and it doesn't appear to have any information about the RSS definition or history that exceeds what is already in the Wikipedia article. In the past people have constantly tried to add external links to this article, so we are reluctant to add something that is not a clearcut improvement.  See WP:EL for Wikipedia policy on external links. EdJohnston 00:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add New External Link to an Essay 

message: You can convert your RSS / PodCast to PHP, and Javascript.  
* RSSConverters RSS2JS, RSS2PHP, PodCast2PHP, and PodCast2JS
:Thanks for your note, but see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided for reasons why this type of link would not be appropriate for the RSS article. EdJohnston 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS / PodCast Conversion 

message: According to a this posting by an anonymous contributor on Talk:The Long Tail, this Google search brings up our RSS article as having the fourth-highest Google rank of any Wikipedia article. This could be an argument for someone to spend time improving the article!  (See the original posting for the logic behing this claim). On the off-chance that the submitter's argument is correct, here are the top ten articles in Wikipedia:
#Main Page
#http://www.wikipedia.org
#Podcast
#RSS
#Hurricane Katrina
#Blog
#Germany
#Italy
#China
#Greece
EdJohnston 16:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our [[RSS]] article is said to be ranked #4 in Google among all Wikipedia articles 

message: Why do we have an internal link to RSS FAQ when the page does not exist in the further information section? I have removed this as it seems pointless if you can't read anymore about it.
Adam 01:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS FAQ 

message: Text currently states:
Effectively, this the format without an owner, just as it was becoming widely used.
Compare:
Pitifully, this dog without an owner, just as it was becoming widely appreciated.
Meaning? P0M 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. This the format -> This left the format. EdJohnston 05:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible 

message: This edit must be the one in which Dave Winer changed our RSS article, to replace the link to the Cadenhead version of the RSS 2.0 spec with the one hosted at Harvard that he favors. He commented on the situation here on his Scripting News blog. There has also been some discussion lately on various blogs as to what the difference is between the two warring specs. (Apparently not much; one comment is here). Certainly our policies allow Dave Winer or any other person who might be covered by an article to comment on the Talk page, so this comment (April 30) seems a little harsh: 
EdJohnston 15:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the chairman of the RSS Advisory Board. The RSS 2.0 spec link on the External Links section is significantly out of date. The current version, updated most recently this month to clarify namespace support in RSS, is published here. Our position, as the publisher of the spec since 2003, is that people should use http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification when linking to the spec, not older versions archived elsewhere. Rcade 15:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Atom's syndication format has completed the IETF process. The thing that's still working its way through is the publishing protocol. As for RSS, I'm just pointing out that we're doing exactly what we've done since our group was founded by Brent Simmons, Jon Udell and Dave Winer. Winer has a different position today on all of this, but as someone he asked to join the board in 2004 and a member ever since, I think he's rewriting history. The significant difference between Winer's archived spec and the current spec, in sentences you can consider for inclusion on Wikipedia: "In June 2007, the RSS Advisory Board revised the specification to reflect our judgment that RSS 2.0 permits namespaces to extend core elements with namespace attributes, as Microsoft is doing in Internet Explorer 7. A difference of interpretation left publishers unsure of whether this was permitted or forbidden." The board can't force others to accept our role in RSS as official. But it's my hope that with our public voting and the inclusion of members from all over the RSS development community, we've created a framework for resolving contentious subjects like this namespace issue. Rcade 15:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your draft comment about namespaces. I changed the article so it now links to both versions of the spec, and it now contains most of your two sentences. If can see any other possible improvements to the article text let us know. EdJohnston 16:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The current text points to a mailing list post of mine, in which it is claimed that I cite three specific differences between the two specs. I did nothing of the sort. It was Sam that was claiming those three areas were different, and I was disagreeing with him. In any event, none of that discussion is particularly relevant here - it was just a misunderstanding. Sam was referring to a different document altogether. j4_james 21:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what the bottom line was in the on-line conversation (difference or no difference) but in any event I took out the reference to your posting. Have you been able to determine whether the two specs are the same? EdJohnston 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RSS 2.0 spec controversy 

message: User:Ramir provided this explanation of his recent change to the article. For the full comment see User_talk:EdJohnston#XML_syntax_highlighting_on_RSS:
EdJohnston 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New gimmick has been added to the article for syntax highlighting in the RSS examples 

message: I've merged a list of editors, which were on a separate page, but none of them seem notable; leastways not notable enough to have their own article. Do wee need them? Andy Mabbett 11:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has now been put back at RSS editor. Andy Mabbett 16:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors 

message: Forgive me if I've missed any discussion on this here or in the archive, but shouldn't the two aforementioned images (  and  )be included in the article?  I realize that the Mozilla feed icon has replaced these symbols in many situations, but these were the original icons maintained, they are still plentiful out there, and they would add to the comprehensive nature of the article.  Craig R. Nielsen 19:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Image:RSS icon.svg]] and [[:Image:XML feed button example.png]] 

message: I'd like to remove GeoRSS from the See Also section of this article. While there is a GeoRSS article that claims that it is an 'emerging standard,' and it shows that Yahoo and Google provide some support for any RSS feeds that might use it, the article contains no third party references that show any widespread use of GeoRSS in published RSS freeds. There is no assertion that the GeoRSS proposal is on any standards track, at W3C or elsewhere. It seems to be the product of a small organization called the Open Geospatial Consortium. There is a roadmap, but it has no entries in it. Lacking more details, I argue that GeoRSS is only a proposal, and is not yet mainstream enough for the RSS article to link to it. Please comment if you have opinions on this. EdJohnston 14:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[GeoRSS]] not yet notable 

message: I think it would make much more sense if the two examples of the RSS feeds had the same content them, but in different formats (1.00 and 2.00, respectively). It would better show the differences between the two formats.
MasterDragon 15:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use the same example 

message: On my User Talk, Boffob left this comment about his reason for the Cleanup tag. EdJohnston 17:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It just seems sprawling, includes events that may have little to no long-term historical significance (WP:NOT), has completely unnecessary external links within the text (WP:LINKS), etc. That's why I just put a general cleanup tag. I don't know how many times I have added cleanup tags or simply removed history sections (those with actually no historical content to speak of) of internet technology articles (especially articles about recent companies in the business with such sections).--Boffob 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried my best to clean it up and focus on the timeline of the RSS 0.90/1.0 branch and the 0.91/2.0 branch, along with a mention of how Atom fits in. As part of this, I think the Atom section is redundant and should be removed. Jamesdennis 17:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Jamesdennis's rewrite of the History section seems good. My only comment would be that this article is overloaded on history, and the nuances of the different RSS X.YY versions are no longer all that relevant. Most reader programs take the new versions of all formats, so far as I can tell.  I like the balance and motivation that James has achieved in his version, and suggest that much of his new text be considered for moving to History of web syndication technology. A shorter version could be left in the RSS article. In any case I support his suggestion that the Atom section be removed. EdJohnston 17:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion here, the Atom section has been removed. I think Atom's adequately covered in the history section and on its own page. Jamesdennis 20:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. The only remaining mystery would be, 'Did the world really need the Atom spec? Exactly what types of things was RSS unable to deal with?' Since this is a mystery that may not have occurred to most RSS users, who simply use RSS (or Atom) and don't perceive any remaining problems, I suppose it's not a burning question. Our article suggests that Atom was developed because the RSS spec was frozen. EdJohnston 20:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup tag on History section