[chrismorgan]

I have a bone to pick with the edited title this was submitted under.

The article’s title is “YouTube, your feeds are broken”. The word “RSS” was added to the submission title. That’s factually incorrect: YouTube feeds are Atom, and have been since at least 2009. Even if they have from early days even to this day had a terrible habit of incorrectly labelling the <link rel="alternate"> tags with type="application/rss+xml" and title="RSS" or similar.

(I hate RSS. Awful thing, should have died more than twenty years ago. For all domains outside outside the benighted world of podcasting where Apple ruined things, Atom is the strictly better choice, and has been for full twenty years.)

[NicuCalcea]

I think that battle is lost. RSS is already terminology the internet is slowly forgetting, being pedantic and insisting some RSS feeds should actually be called Atom feeds will only accelerate that.

[chrismorgan]

They’re feeds. That’s an adequate term and the best one to use. Adding RSS may gain familiarity, but it also loses accuracy. There was no good reason to alter the title.

[NicuCalcea]

If I saw a headline saying "YouTube, your feeds are broken", I would think the post is about YouTube's algorithmic feeds. Search for "youtube feed", and you'll see that all the results are about that.

[account42]

Atom fanatics are the vegans of feed enjoyers. For most people RSS refers to both the concept the and particular encoding used and does not imply that both are referenced.

Btw, XHTML also lost to HTML for the same reason - what matters is that stuff works, not that pedants are happy.

[veeti]

Thank you for the interjection.