Why Microsoft is wrong about RSS
Unfortunately I’m not at Gnomedex 5, but I’ve been keeping an eye and ear out for the news flying from Seattle. I couldn’t help but write about Microsoft’s announcement for RSS. If you haven’t heard about it yet, i’ll give it to you in short, then followed by why I think Microsoft is wrong.
So yesterday at Gnomedex, Microsoft announced:
- They will be implementing a platform for RSS subscriptions in Longhorn, in order to allow different applications to access all the subscriptions of a user, instead of having each application deal with it separately (forcing the user to subscribe in each one)
- Enclosure support from Microsoft applications (like the photo viewer for photo enclosures, windows media player for audio and video enclosures, etc)
- An addition to the RSS standard to allow for listing contents
While the first two measures seem logical to me, and are proof that Microsoft is trying to go the way of the digital life that Apple’s been going on for a while, the third concerns me. This is mainly because it seems Microsoft is trying to break the purpose of RSS. Why?
They’ve announced this extension to RSS because they feel like RSS gives users no way to know what content came at what time, and how it was organized. The problem is, that’s exactly how RSS is supposed to work in the first place.
RSS is about raw content, not about content organization. Just like XHTML/CSS is about code and content separation, RSS/RSS readers are about the exact same thing. RSS feeds alone should carry information, no strings attached, while it is the reader’s function to act upon that information, sort it according to user settings, and present it.
What Microsoft announced breaks this content/code separation methodology, the way I see it (even though this is purely based on their speech, the actual implementation is still to come). I see this as a step back in terms of syndication, and so far, there’s really nothing new to what they propose. We’ll know soon enough if they manage to prove me wrong.

I’m always doubtful of every XML vocabulary until I’m giving an example of an application that couldn’t be rewritten in the existing XML vocabs. I’m waiting. I’m not seeing.
Comment by Randy Charles Morin — June 25, 2005 @ 10:09 pm