[whatwg] Removing the need for separate feeds

[Smylers]

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:

* http://warmscotland.org/

  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.

* http://web.archive.org/web/20051024131550/http://www.leeds-camra.com/Blog/

  Content was manually added to the top.  Once a month the content was
  moved to an archive page.  (This blog no longer exists.)

* http://web.archive.org/web/20060515220924/http://www.beccyowen.com/

  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.)

* http://web.archive.org/web/20070827182615/www.arianeandzarina.com/blog.html

  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.

Smylers