Devin, you're right... renaming RSS will not do the trick, but it could help a bit.
The real trick is getting regular folk to understand the benefits RSS gives over email, so they are not afraid to sign up for content due to spam, viruses, phishing, etc.
Devin Reams
· 3 years ago
I agree, you outlined some great benefits and I found your previous article pretty comprehensive. Besides, I noticed a report the other day mentioning teenagers and how they're turned off to email entirely. Obviously this 'generation' will require the opt-in content and RSS is the perfect solution.
Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment, Brian.
Brian Clark
· 3 years ago
Yeah, the teeagers don't need any help in "getting it." In fact, we'll be working hard to keep up with them.
It's the older people that I worry about getting it, which is why I'm resigned to the fact that RSS adoption is ultimately in Microsoft's hands.
Scary, I know. :)
Devin Reams
· 3 years ago
Yikes.. it is scary but I definitely echo your point. The browsers could certainly help... I'm surprised neither recognize an .XML file as something I can subscribe to!
Brook
· 3 years ago
Hmmm ... is the key here the difference between a pull model for content and a push (broadcast) model? Email is push (I send, you receive) while RSS is a pull (while grazing over the webscape, I decide to get content from someone, so I subscribe for it (pull)).
I sense a major transformation in content delivery - moving from broadcast to subscription and asynchronous delivery (TiVO, RSS, etc.)
Easy and simple drive adoption of disruptive technology. I think that is the point being made about RSS. The current metaphor for easy and simple is to have a file object launch an application (Thanks Steve Jobs) because there is a one-to-one relationship between the file and the application that knows how to get its contents.
However, XML seems more abstract than the file/application metaphor. I always thought of XML as a metadata wrapper capable of providing "self-description" of the encapsulated data stream. So, if one of the XML tags is "application", then clicking on XML files ought to enable execution of an application.
Was this the notion you were getting at Dev?
Devin Reams
· 3 years ago
I'm not sure if pull v. push is the question because I think that whichever they are (pull or push), email and RSS are the same. That's why I figured 'opt-in' describes it best.. either way, we're going out and hand-picking the content we wish to receive.
As you and Brian mentioned, it needs to be simple. This is my biggest point and which is why I agree that widespread acceptance will require Microsoft's attempts.
I agree, though: XML is more abstract than a RSS feed... but when I open an XML file in my browser there's a very slim chance I'd be doing anything other than looking at an RSS feed. If that's too hard for the browser to understand then why can't we rename our .xml files to .rss and have Firefox, IE, etc. open it as a feed? By default, let the browser handle the file (I don't know if you've seen the 'Subscribe' features in Firefox and the new IE?) or else, if availble, why not launch it into FeedDemon? Or bring it into our Newsgator Outlook Edition?
Ken Savage
· 2 years ago
Have you explored what feed:// does?
Devin Reams
· 2 years ago
Wouldn't that be browser-specific? I find it annoying really that Firefox and IE take me to their 'helpful' page for feeds. It allows you to subscribe in the browser and maybe an online feed reader. But it can't possibly list them all.
Abby
· 2 years ago
I wrote my own rss feed because i could not find a writer that had the right look. So anyway i have created my feeds with the .rss extension. IE7 has no problem opening them but some of the feed validators and rss educational websites tell me that rss 2.0 files should be saved with an .xml extension. What should i do? Change the file extensions or wait for the other rss readers to catch up?
All Comments
The real trick is getting regular folk to understand the benefits RSS gives over email, so they are not afraid to sign up for content due to spam, viruses, phishing, etc.
Thanks for taking the time to stop by and comment, Brian.
It's the older people that I worry about getting it, which is why I'm resigned to the fact that RSS adoption is ultimately in Microsoft's hands.
Scary, I know. :)
I sense a major transformation in content delivery - moving from broadcast to subscription and asynchronous delivery (TiVO, RSS, etc.)
Easy and simple drive adoption of disruptive technology. I think that is the point being made about RSS. The current metaphor for easy and simple is to have a file object launch an application (Thanks Steve Jobs) because there is a one-to-one relationship between the file and the application that knows how to get its contents.
However, XML seems more abstract than the file/application metaphor. I always thought of XML as a metadata wrapper capable of providing "self-description" of the encapsulated data stream. So, if one of the XML tags is "application", then clicking on XML files ought to enable execution of an application.
Was this the notion you were getting at Dev?
As you and Brian mentioned, it needs to be simple. This is my biggest point and which is why I agree that widespread acceptance will require Microsoft's attempts.
I agree, though: XML is more abstract than a RSS feed... but when I open an XML file in my browser there's a very slim chance I'd be doing anything other than looking at an RSS feed. If that's too hard for the browser to understand then why can't we rename our .xml files to .rss and have Firefox, IE, etc. open it as a feed? By default, let the browser handle the file (I don't know if you've seen the 'Subscribe' features in Firefox and the new IE?) or else, if availble, why not launch it into FeedDemon? Or bring it into our Newsgator Outlook Edition?