RSS: Not Mainstream?

[ While I agree RSS is good, I believe RSS is not good enough to become mainstream. ]

This is like saying XML isn't ready for prime-time - 'prime-time' what? Many RSS opponents and advocates are missing the point of a standard or specification. It's a specification that may or may not be suitable for the implementation of a given objective. RSS is no different than XML (the most abstract XML grammar) except it is less abstract. Most people think of RSS in a very narrow set or use cases, so saying it's not good enough for mainstream adoption is somewhat misdirected.

An important perspective - challenging the effectiveness of a specification is not the same as challenging a technology or a product. If you believe there are problems with the specification, you need to state the issues in that context. I (for one) think there are lots of unresolved issues with news syndication technology, but it's not because of the specification.

[ 1) RSS feeds do not have a history.]

RSS feeds do have a history if the server that hosts them has the notion of history and if the reader that views them understands the same notion. Think outside the 'news reader' box and it's pretty easy to envision lots of models like this.

[ 2) RSS wastes bandwidth.]

It sure does. ;-) But this won't prevent an adoption curve to mainstream. Look at video, audio, and the many other wasteful things we do every day on the Internet. Many of these inefficient technologies are mainstream. Let's examine a team of people that each receive a 1mb Word document via email and then each mark up changes and then email them back to each other - now you have some big bandwidth issues. Imagine an RSS solution that points to one document that's versioned and managed with RSS to keep the group in sync. Imagine how much bandwidth is wasted each day when all the people on the planet read every Intranet and portal and newsletter Web page to glean what they need to know to do their jobs tomorrow. RSS will ultimately put a dent in bandwidth consumption, not increase it.

[ 3) Reading RSS requires too much work.]

It does [today]. In 1999 I did a search for RSS and found a few hundred hits. Today there are 12,000,000. Do you think the usability issues will stop (or slow) this trajectory? Of course not - see RSS: Hiding in Plain Sight

[ 4) An RSS Reader must come with Windows.]

An RSS reader WILL come with Windows [eventually]. Until then it's adoption curve will indeed suffer from a level of immaturity IF (and only if) you assume there is a single use-case for the spec. Why is it that everyone assumes RSS is designed to be consumed by machines that arbitrate directly (and only) with humans? There are hundreds of use-cases for content and knowledge syndication - many of which do not involve end users.

[ 5) RSS content is not User-Friendly.]

No XML content is user friendly. ;-) You have missed one of the most important points of semantic information - it's not supposed to assume a presentation style or use-case. If you want to impose a specific presentation format for a specific business requirement you are free to do so.

[ 6) RSS content is not machine-friendly.]

With the help of a 'machine', Robert Scoble is able to consume 1200+ feeds. Pretty amazing for a human, and certainly not possible without some help from a machine. Machine-friendly is a broad term; RSS happens to be more machine-friendly than many other formats. Search crawlers haven't learned how to deal with RSS [yet], and RSS (the spec) is simple, otherwise it would be called RCS (Really Complex Syndication). ;-)

[ 7) Many RSS Feeds show only an abridged version of the content.]

Indeed they do, and at the publisher's choice. Should anyone be forced to use any XML specification in a certain way? I don't think this is a fair argument against the implementation detail known as RSS. Imagine a use case where an RSS feed must create an awareness of content items that are 1gb each. However, due to bandwidth concerns the content publisher decides it would be best to not overload every desktop with every item's weight. Suggesting that RSS is problematic because publishers don't include all content is simply absurd - consistently applying that argument across ALL use cases doesn't make much sense to me. The MyST platform allows content producers to choose how their content is displayed - full text or headlines only.

[ 8) Comments are not integrated with RSS feeds.]

Many things are not integrated with RSS, but they can be (see name-space extensions). Suggesting that comments should be integrated with RSS is taking the position that every use case for RSS requires commenting - flawed logic and probably not defendable.

[ 9) Multiple Versions of RSS cause more confusion.]

Sure they do, but multiple versions of HTML do the same, and it had no trouble reaching 'mainstream'.

[ 10) RSS is Insecure.]

RSS isn't insecure - the server systems and delivery solutions for RSS are insecure. MyST is evidence this is a flawed argument.