rippeltippel 3 hours ago

At this point, developers have named so many projects "Atom" that there are officially more Atoms in the world than there are atoms in the universe.

  • echelon 3 hours ago

    This one is (was) pretty important.

    The hyperscalers stopped that timeline from winning, though.

    • riffraff 39 minutes ago

      How is this the hyperscalers fault?

      YouTube had atom feeds and I don't think Amazon and Microsoft have relevant syndication.

      Meta is surely responsible but that's it, imo.

      • echelon 34 minutes ago

        Google on several occasions took moves to make the web less semantic.

        They dumped microformats and standards in favor of soupy error tolerant formats that benefitted their search engine and made it harder for other efforts to make information shareable and accessible.

        They wanted it to be easy to get information in, but for you to have to go through them to get information out.

      • erk__ 9 minutes ago

        YouTube still does

            <feed xmlns:yt="http://www.youtube.com/xml/schemas/2015" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
        

        I don't think they are linked to anywhere but the url is http://www.youtube.com/feeds/videos.xml?channel_id=<channel_id>

mplanchard 8 hours ago

I hand-rolled an atom feed for my statically generated blog. It’s a reasonable, easy format to work with.

eterevsky 1 hour ago

It was an alternative to RSS from 20 years ago that didn't catch on.

  • brabel 49 minutes ago

    IIRC RSS 2.0 included most of what Atom has, no?

  • riffraff 29 minutes ago

    I think it caught on well enough, platforms such as Wordpress still support it out of the box (I just checked my blog, it works).

    I liked Atom's clean design but it felt it was mostly pushed by Google (I may be misremembering) and in the end the syndicated web faded into obscurity anyway.

intrasight 8 hours ago

First iteration of Google's APIs were atom. I do miss XML.

  • abustamam 5 hours ago

    One of the API providers I use at work returns responses in XML and we use an XML parser to parse it to JSON and even then it's not perfect.

    What do you like about XML? I feel like I'm missing something.

    • refulgentis 4 hours ago

      I don't reach for it often but I've been around the block a bit, CC processors in the iPad point of sale I built circa 2010 used it and it seemed a bit off/unnecessary.

      In retrospect, its useful for creating islands of sanity/enforcement in a codebase. Lightweight way to give type annotations across organizational boundaries.

      > we use an XML parser to parse it to JSON and even then it's not perfect

      I can't quite picture this: how does one parse XML to JSON? I assume there's code that's parsing XML and returning a JSON object? What would make this not perfect, other than a poor implementation of the translator? Would them using JSON help? If JSON is a less expressive format than JSON, is it possible to 100% translate their XML to JSON?

      • abustamam 3 hours ago

        > useful for creating islands of sanity/enforcement in a codebase

        Thanks for the insight! Is this what JSDoc/Swagger is now used for?

        > I can't quite picture this: how does one parse XML to JSON?

        I'm not sure actually. I haven't personally seen the code, I just hear my coworkers always lambasting that API provider for their usage of XML. Maybe it's just their lack of documentation that sucks, but it's become a running joke whenever we get a new partner that the team integrating it jokes that their API is XML.

    • deaddodo 2 hours ago

      The main benefit of XML over JSON is that it is structured, and can be associated with Schema's for built in validation.

      Obviously, that's only a benefit if you care about and utilize those features; most teams doing JSON integrations will just build those into the consumer in lieu of them being provided by the transport. But it is something that some people (especially larger enterprise organizations) value.

      • dolmen 1 hour ago

        JSON is structured (not plain text to be analyzed by an IA). JSON has JSON Schema.

        In addition, JSON is easier to parse and to map to common data structures of programming languages.

    • theshrike79 1 hour ago

      XLM had DTDs and Schemas 20 years ago.

      JSON is still figuring it out.

echelon 3 hours ago

IIRC, Aaron Swartz was one of the contributors to the format. RIP.

drob518 4 hours ago

Well, that’s a blast from the past.

tkcranny 8 hours ago

I’m not clear on the difference between atom and RSS. Atom seemed to be the better spec, but for my Astro blog I ended up sticking to the built in `rss` helper it ships with.

perrohunter 8 hours ago

what is old is new again?

  • hnlmorg 8 hours ago

    No, this is just old.

    Pity though. RSS / Atom was a fantastic concept and it’s a real pity big tech killed them off.

    • rambambram 7 hours ago

      Nothing is killed. It still exists, it's an open protocol after all. And I choose to use it, it's pretty fun to calmly follow around 2000 feeds from - mostly - blogs from HN. And cars... I need my car blogs.

      • geodel 7 hours ago

        Agreed. That nowadays people or even big companies find it outside their core competency to host their blog, have atom/RSS feeds is not because big tech killing it.

    • bawolff 5 hours ago

      Meh. Big tech didnt kill it off, it was already dead at that point. Sometimes things just arent popular no matter how much we might want it to be.

      • lolive 4 hours ago

        Google Reader was uber popular at a time, then Google decided that syndication of articles, with comments, had to be an exclusive feature of their Facebook-esque Google+.

    • pletnes 1 hour ago

      Lots of sites publish outages, incidents, downtime over RSS/atom. Works great for monitoring, post them into slack with a bot and you can start a discussion thread about that incident where you first hear about it.