Page 2 of 2
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:50 am
by WALoeIII
Atom is similar enough to RSS, 99% of agregators support it because its the blogger standard. It will die out soon enough, RSS has the momentum VCR vs BetaMax anyone?
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:05 am
by The_Tick
Google likes atom more
But this is not a discussion for this thread. What is relevant is the reasoning behind putting up a atom/rss feed. If we do put up a feed, it needs to have something like HTTP 304, or it's not worth doing due to "bandwidth" issues.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:15 am
by bgannin
The_Tick wrote:Google likes atom more
But this is not a discussion for this thread. What is relevant is the reasoning behind putting up a atom/rss feed. If we do put up a feed, it needs to have something like HTTP 304, or it's not worth doing due to "bandwidth" issues.
...
Combined front page [graphics, css, html], at least 40k > news feed, <25k at most [provided you appropriately trim excess/old posts]
1) There's a difference of 15k regardless of standard. This is hyperbole, but a good example. I didn't check the actual size metrics, but it gives you an idea.
2) There's the qualitative difference that doesn't measure - i.e, user convenience and more time-appropriate traffic.
3) If you are that concerned about standard adherence roll an abbreviated, strict feed on your own by hand and put it on the server instead of using a pre-generated system.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:20 am
by air__devil
WALoeIII wrote:Atom is similar enough to RSS, 99% of agregators support it because its the blogger standard. It will die out soon enough, RSS has the momentum VCR vs BetaMax anyone?
BetaMax was better. But they didn't sell out. Much like a certain computer company I'm thinking of...
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:10 am
by The_Tick
bgannin wrote:The_Tick wrote:Google likes atom more
But this is not a discussion for this thread. What is relevant is the reasoning behind putting up a atom/rss feed. If we do put up a feed, it needs to have something like HTTP 304, or it's not worth doing due to "bandwidth" issues.
...
Combined front page [graphics, css, html], at least 40k > news feed, <25k at most [provided you appropriately trim excess/old posts]
1) There's a difference of 15k regardless of standard. This is hyperbole, but a good example. I didn't check the actual size metrics, but it gives you an idea.
2) There's the qualitative difference that doesn't measure - i.e, user convenience and more time-appropriate traffic.
3) If you are that concerned about standard adherence roll an abbreviated, strict feed on your own by hand and put it on the server instead of using a pre-generated system.
How many times an hour will the web page be loaded by host for RSS versus standard browser? This is a real issue, please don't disparage it. We just need to find out if they implement it.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:43 am
by bgannin
From what I saw on Blogger.com they implement Atom support. The spec is entirely XML-based and I did not find any specific HTML standards listed or referenced, but it was a quick skim.
http://www.atomenabled.org/developers/s ... t-spec.php
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:45 am
by The_Tick
Unless we are going to let the feed be read off of blogger.com, then it'll be sourceforge bandwidth being pulled. In either case it would be whichever host actually provides the feed that needs to have the 304 support. Which would the information be pulled from?
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:38 pm
by wtmcgee
I respect the dev's decision if they don't want to use a rss feed, however the logic is a bit twisted.
Without an rss feed, the only time most users will visit the adium site is when there is an update available (and the app notifies us of such). However, with an rss feed, any time there is news, any interested reader would be notified via their rss reader, and would stay up to date on any adium news.
If you think not including a rss feed increases web traffic, you are quite wrong.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 4:16 pm
by thejokell
nanovivid wrote:IIRC, the free version of Blogger does not have RSS. However, you could
turn on the Atom feed, since all the major newsreaders support it anyway.
Apparently there's some voodoo you can do with
FeedBurner that will convert an Atom feed to an RSS one, so you would be able to provide both formats that way.
This is what I would recommend (and what I do with a Blogger-based site I run). This way the feed would actually be hosted at FeedBurner, and not on SourceForge.
Plus you can customize the feed in a ton of ways with Feedburner.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 5:23 pm
by The_Tick
wtmcgee wrote:I respect the dev's decision if they don't want to use a rss feed, however the logic is a bit twisted.
Without an rss feed, the only time most users will visit the adium site is when there is an update available (and the app notifies us of such). However, with an rss feed, any time there is news, any interested reader would be notified via their rss reader, and would stay up to date on any adium news.
If you think not including a rss feed increases web traffic, you are quite wrong.
It will increase traffic unless certain things are in place, then it majorly decreases it. Which is what I've been saying we need to find out if the host providing the feed has implemented.
Posted: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:59 pm
by thejokell
The_Tick wrote:wtmcgee wrote:I respect the dev's decision if they don't want to use a rss feed, however the logic is a bit twisted.
Without an rss feed, the only time most users will visit the adium site is when there is an update available (and the app notifies us of such). However, with an rss feed, any time there is news, any interested reader would be notified via their rss reader, and would stay up to date on any adium news.
If you think not including a rss feed increases web traffic, you are quite wrong.
It will increase traffic unless certain things are in place, then it majorly decreases it. Which is what I've been saying we need to find out if the host providing the feed has implemented.
Which is exactly why you should look into Feedburner.
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:19 am
by The_Tick
Doesn't feedburner put an ad at the bottom of feed posts?
Posted: Sat Jan 22, 2005 5:11 pm
by thejokell
The_Tick wrote:Doesn't feedburner put an ad at the bottom of feed posts?
Nope
Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2005 4:53 am
by The_Tick
thejokell wrote:The_Tick wrote:Doesn't feedburner put an ad at the bottom of feed posts?
Nope
Neat. That resolves one issue then. Just need to know if the host will do http 304.