|RSS Feeds |
Benefit of using different versions?
Our RSS feed validates but I am curious as to those with experience would recommend using which version, is there any benefit to me or the end user if it is .91, ,92 or 1?
Should I be creating one for each?
I have read most of the pages here on rss and also all the major rss pages but do not seem to be able to get the answer for above.
While I don't have a verifiable answer, my gut instinct is to go with the latest version and not worry about the older versions. The updates between them would be the difference and I believe they aren't that significant. If you want to pursue this further, read up on the version history.
Thanks lorax, I am reading about it etc but it is very confusing in that it seems a lot of readers support the older and some do not support the newer and a lot of the documentation is from the year 2000!
That is why I am trying to see if anyone has a hands on experience of benefits of using whichever or more than one.
Determining which version is "newer" is not so easy, and the whole issue of versions is rather confused, as there are two competing standards, and at times heated arguements about it.
The .91, .92, .93, and 2.0 versions are maintained by Dave Winer of Userland Software, and are probably the most popular, and generally backward compatible - that is most newsreaders or parsers who read a .91 feed will also parse a 2.0 feed
The 1.0, by the rss-dev working group, is more "RDF", and represents a different philosophy.
I have been similarly confused, and decided that a clean verion of either is acceptable - That is when using the .91, .92 standard it is good to truncate the "description" and keep html tags out of it, if one is looking to keep all syndicators and readers happy, but this is just my take on it.
SmallTime, I agree that it is very confusing, I am sticking to the version 0.91 and am testing the 2.0 but there is hardly any difference between the two.