|
Atom is not a magnitude more complex or strict. It has _two_ places where it requires something even slightly onerous, and that's in the summary and content elements, where, shockingly, it allows you to specify if the content is XHTML, HTML, or text, and for HTML, it's just a matter of escaping the contents or putting it in CDATA. That's it. I don't know what you're doing that RSS 2.0 is somehow faster to parse than Atom. I've written parsers for both over the past twenty years with a negligible difference between the two besides the fact that the RSS feeds often need hacks. I've also wrote a whole bunch of blog and linkblog backends that produce Atom feeds, and have never and issue with any. Let's look at the required elements of an entry: updated, title, id. Nothing remotely onerous there. In fact, it's purposely minimal, more minimal than RSS. And in RSS 2.0, title is a required element (because if something it's explicitly noted as optional in the RSS 2.0 spec, it's assumed to be optional). In my personal linklog, I use the title of the target page of the link as the title, because it's the sensible option. With tweets, you have half a point. Only half a point, because title is required, but Twitter also post-dates the early 2000s considerably. But here's the thing: 'title' is required in RSS and Atom, but there's nothing saying it can't be empty. I know, I've blown your mind! And then there's JSONFeed, which, of course, can somehow gracefully cope with people dropping '"' in random parts of the file because people generate JSON files like that by hand, right? Right? Just like they write RSS and Atom feeds, right? Right? |