[whatwg] Removing the need for separate feeds
Smylers at stripey.com
Fri May 22 04:08:07 PDT 2009
Adrian Sutton writes:
> On 22/05/2009 11:36, "Toby Inkster" <mail at tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:
> > You never see manually written feeds because people can't be
> > bothered to manually write feeds. So the people who manually author
> > HTML simply don't bother providing feeds at all.
> > If an HTML page can *be* a feed, this allows manually authored HTML
> > pages to be subscribed to in feed readers.
> For this to make sense, these people would also be manually adding new
> entries to the top of the page and dropping old ones off the bottom
> all by hand. ... Can anyone point to examples where the content is
> entirely hand crafted and a feed would actually make sense?
I find that 'news' pages on bands' and products' websites often seem to
be like this -- but I don't have links to any current ones (almost by
definition: because the sites don't offer feeds, I don't follow them, so
can't remember them).
Here are some from the past:
News and updates were manually added to the top of the list. The
existed for a specific short-term campaign and I'm not sure any
dropped off the bottom before it was over.
Content was manually added to the top. Once a month the content was
moved to an archive page. (This blog no longer exists.)
Content appeared at the top; I'm not sure if it ever disappeared from
the bottom, until the entire site was redesigned. (The redesign
features a feed.)
Content was manually added at the top; I'm not sure if it ever
disappeared from the bottom, until the entire blog was abandonned.
The 'subscribe' link is to get e-mail updates.
More information about the whatwg