What’s in a Name
There are now dozens of articles like InformationWeek’s “Microsoft, Google Ruffle Some RSS Feathers“. It would seem there is a hue and cry raised over the fact that Microsoft and Google are using the terms “web feeds” or “feeds” instead of saying “RSS.”
This is not a problem, friends, this is a sign of maturity.
Let’s be honest: RSS has more flavors than Baskin Robbins. RSS isn’t a brand, it isn’t a single specification, and it isn’t even an adjective people can agree on. And let us not forget the new Atom 1.0 standard. In a couple of years, there will probably be other formats for syndicated feeds. They can’t all be called “RSS.”
So why in the world would Google only label something as “RSS” when they’re already providing Atom, a completely different format, as well? They needed a generic name to describe both, and they came up with the term “Feeds”. Microsoft is calling them “Web Feeds”, which is probably an even better term for Joe Public. These terms allow formats to come and go, but concepts and menu items remain the same.
Seriously, what is all the fuss about?
Update 8/22/2005
Despite this idiotic Slashdot article (as one commenter puts it: “Wow. It’s a marketing plant trumpeting that RSS is now the standard, made by a company that specialises in RSS feeds.”), the Microsoft Longhorn/Vista team has announced its plans to support Atom 0.3 and Atom 1.0 in a later release. You’ll note that that this other announcement comes in a company blog which provides both RSS and Atom — dare I say — web feeds.
Dave Winer, ignoring the existence of Atom, thinks that Microsoft is out to get him.
