Talk:Atom (web standard) - Knowledge (XXG)

1575:

schema, for example, or is that there just to make the list longer? -- and omits information that might make RSS look not quite as bad. For example, the list claims that RSS 2.0 cannot be modified, but it omits to mention that the RSS 2.0 spec explicitly allows extension through the use of markup using namespaces. The list compares Atom to RSS 2.0 but not to RSS 1.0, which resolves some of the issues (for example, the problem with reusing elements in other documents, and the problem of escaped markup -- in fact, don't some RSS 2.0 feeds incorporate RSS 1.0 elements?). Over all, the impression is of a list designed not to educate people about differences, but to convince people that Atom is better, picking the angle on each point that puts Atom in the most favorable light. That's not to say that Atom isn't better than RSS -- it's good to have a lot of the ambiguities resolved. It's just that the list is a bit out of place in Knowledge (XXG), since it looks a lot like advocacy (I'm not surprised that it was tagged POV before, and should have checked the history -- thanks for pointing that out).

857:

on an individual article basis? I created an Atom category to mirror the RSS category and added it to pagese that support Atom -- I confirmed each product before I did so. If not then the people watching those pages most likely feel that they are legitimate -- none have been reverted so far, and only one has been slightly modified to better fit with the section I put it in. The best demonstration of your bias is that you complained about the "bias" in the Atom article but you feel no qualms about the same "bias" in the RSS article -- I did that in part to make a point and you proved it well. Also, I only copied two sections (part of the user's perspective lead) and most of the usage section -- maybe we should pull out the usage section of both the RSS and Atom articles into a separate web feed article to avoid unnecessary duplication? --

1555:

short summary of the main points with a pointer to an external site would be the best way to handle it. We've gone through this same kind of problem with articles about airports — as a pilot, I initially added all kinds of information to airport articles (radio frequencies, night lighting, instrument approaches, FBO locations, etc.) which seemed very important to me, but wasn't really appropriate to a general encyclopedia audience, and other editors eventually (and rightly) removed it. And note that when I say that the use of XML Namespaces isn't relevant to this audience, I'm saying it as one of the members of the XML WG that developed the Namespaces spec, so this isn't an anti-XML rant.

1834:'RFC 5023' automatically becomes a link to the plaintext standard through special magic in Mediawiki. Luckily, you can easily undo the special magic by supplying your own link. I substituted your new HTML version of the RFC, which it seems is hosted on a web site operated by Joe Gregorio, the editor of some of the standards. (I wonder if IETF might someday generate their own HTML versions). If anyone thinks this document would be better cited with a fully-specified {{cite web |... }} reference, instead of a plain URL, that would be fine. 1476:

you feel such a move isn't needed. Or maybe you would like to keep all the history of Atom here, and just put a history summary in the new article? Just for the sake of symmetry, I copied the Atom history over to that page. It shouldn't be left in both places, or it will fork--one page should have the history, the other should just summarize and point to t he long version. Could we discuss on this talk page which course would be best?My intention is good, please don't flame me.

1005:, of the article is being questioned - a sort of case of, "what your saying isn't wrong, but I require it be said in a way I can accept." That said rss is the vhs of it's space and has those types of advantages: it's adoption is widespread in providers and consumers and the fact that rss has become the everyday term for active content distribution. Maybe those points could be added to the comparison of atom and rss and finally take off the neutrality tag? 1966:, I think it is inappropriate for this article to have an ever-growing list of external links to people's praise of Atom and disparagement of RSS -- and is there even one link on the list to arguments made from the other side? I would like somebody who knows more about this than I do to prune these categories to a size more appropriate to its importance and if possible to add some balance to the linkage. 1513:. It's excessively promotional, copied almost verbatim from lists that have been circulated by Atom supporters to try to convince people to abandon RSS, and it needs to be rewritten with a more balanced and neutral tone rather than a stridently pro-Atom/anti-RSS one. Knowledge (XXG) is not the appropriate place for promoting a spec over another one, even if the spec's a good one. 776:, a strong headed individual who prefers the RSS standard to Atom. Betsy Devine is such an admirer of Dave Winer]] that she creates images of Socrates with the head of Dave on them. Dave links to her all the time and she links to him. Thus Betsy Devine is really fighting her friend's battle here. She is not a neutral person. Just had to get that disclaimer out of the way.) 202: 738:(6) Again, the POV language you are complaining about is taken from the RSS page with Atom inserted for each mention of RSS. Again, I think it is a great idea to balance both articles such that the other format is mentioned in reference to the little orange box. Although I did just removed the XML orange box from the Atom -- it may be RSS specific. (says Bhouston) 254: 233: 1712:, an editor removed several items from See Also that were also mentioned in the text. I've seen debates like this before, and I now support the removal of such duplication. Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory. The place where it is most useful to draw attention to other relevant articles is in the text, where their connection to the topic can be explained. 536:(2) There are many major content providers that provide Atom feeds including the NYT-owned About.com, and the Google websites Blogger, Google News, Gmail. The popular O'Reilly Network and Knowledge (XXG) also support Atom. My contention is that you picked a specific link that does not support Atom in order to make a broad and unfair claim. (said Bhouston) 2052: 1527:. It goes into too much technical detail, mixing up highly visible differences (such as the fact that Atom clearly marks content type) with ones that will affect very few users (such as the date format, or the use of XML Namespaces). Most readers will rightly ask "who cares?", missing the Atom important differences in the noise. 479:

typically sites that change or add content regularly...A program known as a feed reader or aggregator can check Atom webpages on behalf of a user and display any updated articles that it finds...There are also search engines for content published via Atom feeds like Feedster or Blogdigger..." (said BDevine)

1475:

I'm not sure, however, if people who edit this Atom article would like to see its technical history moved into a different article. On the good side, that would give people interested in technical history one place to look. On the dark side, if there aren't severe credit disputes on early Atom, maybe

916:

My apologizes for moving the POV tag to specific sections -- I was trying to narrow the dispute. I don't think I messed up the whole article to make a point -- I strongly dispute your claim that I did. I find is dissappointing that you do not like any of the middle of the road solutions I suggested

856:

Let's get a third party in here if one has the time. It is of no use for use to throw accusations at each other. I posit that all my edits have been legitimate and that you, as an RSS supporter, are just display a lot of bias wrapped up in high sounding language. Let's see if my edits are reverted

816:

I will remove the NPOV dispute tag and we can get around to fixing up the article. Or I suggest that we also add it to the RSS article since it contains much of the same POV text. I also believe that we need a neutral third party here to critique this article -- Betsy Devine is the wrong person to

496:

I don't think that copying the RSS article and posting it here as an Atom article is a sensible way to create Knowledge (XXG) content. My suggestion was that we should distinguish between properties of web feeds in general and those of a specific format (RSS or Atom) in particular. Not long ago, the

684:

5) The suggestion that Atom is the standard for podcasting isn't borne out by community practice, e.g. "Blogger only provides a Atom newsfeed, and RSS 2.0 is the standard for podcasting...There is a free service, FeedBurner, that can be used to translate the Blogger Atom feed into a RSS 2.0 feed.."

547:

I picked the top three newssites that came preinstalled in my Safari browser. I looked at them because my memory was, from the days when I worked at Feedster, that the enthusiasm of Sixapart and Bloogle for Atom was never picked up by our mainstream media feeds. I don't dispute your contention that

1644:

Regarding the first part of that statement, that's like saying: "It's really annoying that Blue-ray and HD DVD are incompatible. I know! Let's create a third DVD format, SuperDVD, that's incompatible with both of them!" Was Ben Trott really making that argument? Because it sounds kind of insane. I

1574:

No forgiveness necessary. I decided not to flag the section as POV this time around, but if we did want to talk about POV issues, the list relentlessly picks at RSS 2.0 for both major and trivial issues simply for the sake of accumulation -- is it really a major issue that RSS does not have an XML

1554:

Sam: when you write "relevant", I think you have to consider what audience this information might be relevant to. Knowledge (XXG) articles can and do go into some technical detail, but this should not be a low-level technical spec sheet. I know that this list already exists elsewhere, so maybe a

755:

The history of RSS and Atom is full of contention. If you consider it of encyclopedic interest, maybe you could create a separate article "Rival web syndication formats", and link to that article from both the RSS and Atom articles. But it's not OK to slant the Atom article (or the RSS article) to

605:

Ben, you have spent several days making changes large and small to articles related to Atom, web feeds, various newsreaders, even my own user page. I have an actual job and a family life and many other activities more rewarding than fighting with you. You need help from a neutral third party here,

1287:

Both the Atom and RSS articles put both formats in the web syndication field only. It would certainly be good to explain that Atom (at least) aims beyond syndicating news. In fact, some active Atom users have stopped using the Syndication term alltogether. It is for example debated whether or not

700:

I don't know much about podcasting, but I had always heard it talked about in terms of RSS. I posted something I thought was relevant from the first page of Google results for "atom + podcasting". BTW, are you aware that the URL you posted is a complaint from a guy that his Atom feed is being

478:

1) This article would give a naive user the misleading impression that all properties and benefits of web feeds generally are properties restricted to Atom feeds. Example: "Atom, from a user's perspective, allows Internet users to subscribe to websites that have provided web feeds; these are

1488:

Almost all the content of the page concerns Atom syndication. I am not familiar with Knowledge (XXG) internals, so I don't know whether this is an error in disambiguation. The topic "Atom (standard)" appears to encompass both syndication and publishing. Would it make sense to separate them?

1888:

You are right, the IETF version is organized by pages and there are gaps between them. The IETF HTML versions of RFCs give you the convenience of links, but are otherwise identical to the ASCII versions. This is because there is only one official version for standards-track RFCs, the ASCII

1771:

I'd welcome a better-qualified sentence here. From a modern standpoint, the RSS/Atom brouhaha seems hard to understand, since the Atom people felt so strongly they were fixing an important problem, but the thing they thought was broken (RSS) continues to flourish and you don't seem to hear

1113:

With much hesitation, I tried to add some of the ideas from this discussion to the comparison of RSS and Atom, which previously was just a list of the reasons Atom's supporters don't like RSS. Could we all agree that each format probably has specific benefits for specific user groups?

485:(1) The POV language you are complaining about is actually the same that is used on the RSS article -- I just removed RSS and inserted Atom. I think it is a great idea that we balance the leads of both articles to mention the other format in an equivalent light. (said Bhouston) 1564:

Forgive me, but if you check the history, this section recently underwent a significant POV challenge. Now you swoop in, and unilaterally "Rewrite blatantly POV section" (your words, not mine). And when you are asked to identify promotional verbage, you change the subject.

834:

The NPOV dispute tag should remain there until the problems with this article are solved. I agree that a neutral third party should help with this. I'll see if I can find one over at Knowledge (XXG) third opinion. Feel free to join me and give your own side of this issue.

529:

2) Such an impression is especially misleading considering that Atom is uncommon outside the blog-universe. CNN, the NY Times, and the BBC (just to mention the top three newslinks on my bookmark bar) have RSS feeds only, and don't mention Atom. (said BDevine)

1083:

Verifiable, but not neutral. It's looks like Atom is better, then RSS. When why everyone choosing RSS? It's common sense to choose latest software. And as I mentioned earlier: All section is same facts in favour Atom. I willing to agree to title something like

887:: "There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Knowledge (XXG)." I hope a third party can bring neutrality, not pro-RSS bias, to the article. 366:

Atom Publishing Protocol is introduced as a part of the Atom standard in the header of this article, but it is never mentioned again. There should either be a separate article for APP or there should be some high level technical description of what APP is.

1508:

I did a cleanup of this section a few days ago, but it was rv'd, and the editor who rv'd has not replied to a message on his talk page, so I decided to tag the section for cleanup. I think that this section suffers from a couple of serious problems:

1791:

This article did not pass a GA review, and it needs quite a bit of work before it is ready. I removed "GA" from the class template, but the article had never been added to the actual Good articles list. As such, I am skipping the formal process or

2480:

criteria. I have moved to (Web standard) leaving (standard) as primary redirect following the first line. (Cloud standard) as category would be narrower. If anyone has a problem, feel free to move it back. Not worth wasting more bytes on. cf.

1143:

There are at least two RSSes, Slashdot is an example of a site that quite satisfied with RSS 1.0, and popular usage of the term RSS tends to encompass all three branches. Besty, ideally you would update your changes to reflect this reality.

1460:

Another possible benefit of the change is to prevent a Knowledge (XXG) fork in feed history, so that somebody with a new citation adds to info to one article but doesn't realize that an incorrect version still lurks in a different article.

1628:

This attributes the opinion to its owner (Ben Trott) and doesn't make us collect data and references to prove that the dialects of RSS were incompatible, which surely would be time-consuming. Let me know if anyone objects to this change.

1423:

Is there an official XML Schema for Atom? I tried to find it on the w3c site but that only redirected me to the IETF site that did not provide an XML Schema. I found may other atom.xsd files but many of them are not correct.

1687:

This section is trying to explain why Atom didn't take over the world and why RSS still survives. The points are a bit speculative and sourcing could be better. Perhaps someone will get around to improving the section :-).

882:

Please don't mess up the Atom article in order to make a point about the RSS article--an article which I didn't write or edit. The fact that I made no objection to material there, which I never read, demonstrates .... ?

1767:

He's only going by the texts of the specs, and not showing actual difficulties that RSS creators and readers are known to have. (Why do we not hear of actual problems that people have in 2008 with RSS incompatibilities?)

1892:

I don't see what is so not convenient about the gaps. I'm an engineer and I'm used to reading RFCs this way. But maybe others also like the no gaps version better and the Knowledge (XXG) linking policy should change...

497:

only web feeds around were various dialects of RSS. There are a lot of oldtimers who talk about RSS and webfeeds as if they were synonyms. I can appreciate that doing so would hurt the feelings of partisans of Atom.

345:

The link goes to a page in a wiki, which some annoying spammer just hacked into. I looked for an equivalent in Tim Bray's own site, but he recommends the "live" version on the wiki. What's the solution here, anybody?

1051:(rough 10 times more and mainly about rss feeds), only that wide spread is advantage. I don't see neutrality and it's clearly misleading, until not answered question: why rss so popular and atom isn't. POV returned. 433:

This talk by Tim Bray (at Emerging Technology Conference, feed from IT Conversations) might be useful addition. He discusses motivation, as well as rationale, and his take on the process (e.g. Was it the right one?)

164: 1177:

I'm not sure how the Slashdot/RSS 1.0 thing fits into a section comparing Atom to RSS 2.0--do you want to add that somewhere? I tried to make it clearer about the popular usage of RSS to mean web feeds in general.

790:

Dave and I are friends who read each other's blogs. I encourage anyone who is curious about whether I am, or Ben is, trying to slant Knowledge (XXG) to look at the pattern of user contributions by each of us.

580:

3) This article article uses non-neutral language about Atom's rival format RSS. Example, "the deficiencies in the frozen RSS format." "Atom improvements over RSS 2.0" "the shortcomings of RSS". (said BDevine)

973:

I don't see anything wrong with the article as it's written now. It doesn't appear to be too biased in favour or against RSS. However, are there any pro-RSS points to add to the differences between them?

518:

Apples and oranges are both edible, one would expect reference on each of their Knowledge (XXG) entries to their use as foodstuff. A naive user might misinterpret this to believe that apples are the only

1870:

Try paging through it to see the difference. What IETF calls an HTML document seems to be a web version of a plain text file, with spaces between pages, but with hyperlinks embedded. Not so convenient.

984:

I don't see any problems with the "Atom Compared to RSS 2.0" section. As far as I can see it's a set of factual statements. Can anyone justify the continued presence of the banner above this section?

997:

I agree. I was just at both specifications from the standpoint of an engineer with extensive xml background what the article states as technical merits seem accurate. It's interesting also that the

1449:

The detailed early history of who invented what web syndication format element when has become a matter of interest and dispute. The same kind of problems cropping up in the article about

787:

Hey, Ben, great to hear these accusations from you once again. I especially enjoy your misleading spin on the joke post I once wrote about somebody else's comparison of Dave to Socrates:

1530:

different people value different things. Perhaps attempting to sort this list into two sections might be a good first step, removing data which is relevant is not a good first step.

1620:

Ben Trott was one of the advocates of the new format that became Atom. He took note of the incompatibility between some versions of the RSS syndication format, and also believed that

732:

6) Another example of confusing Atom with web feeds in general: "On Web pages, Atom feeds are typically linked with an orange rectangle, or with the letters XML." (said BDevine)

2291:

What should users believe when they read the Wiki and it makes no mention of the following info, which appears authoritative and post-dates the linked IETF docs by several years?

650:(4) I will address the frozen for three years and then unfrozen claim and I will include references to people that explain the politics of these shinanigans. (says Bhouston) 641:

4) The repeated mantra that RSS is frozen and can't evolve is no longer true, if it ever was. Harvard is updating the specification and soliciting input from the community:

158: 1819:-- which I find much easier to navigate and link to than the canonical version of that document. (I couldn't even figure out how the existing link is generated, though) 631:

Technical deficiencies can be measured without "consensual reality". Those of RSS are well-documented on the Web, as is their role in motivating the development of Atom.

2418: 2414: 2400: 2233: 2229: 2215: 1341:

The core of Atom is the Atom Format (RFC 4287) and the Atom Publishing Protocol (under development). The Atom Format is already in use well beyond content publishing,

461:

That would be useful. It mentions that there is a large list of Atom supporters. Can you name some prominent ones. Also an article on Sam Ruby would be useful. --

1043:

It's says multiple times, what atom is standartized, it should be only one time and saying that specifically. It don't say what is good in rss, btw., from google:

954:'s page with the facts about Winer's role in the creation of RSS etc. I would suggest her edits reflect considerably more on her friendship with him than research. 1731:

Header of article talks about Atom & Atom Publiishing Protocols both, but everything after header is specific to the CORE atom spec. No discussion of APP. --

2476:

Ho hum. Just came across an editor in good faith reading (standard) as meaning (jazz song). Whatever we think of that, clearly (standard) isn't very helpful per

308: 90: 1068:

The relative popularity/link count of RSS vs. Atom is irrelevant. RSS is about 6 years older, for a start. I believe the facts stated here are all verifiable.

2516: 1516:

if you see promotional verbage, converting those words to a more balanced and neutral tone would be a good thing. Removing data which is relevant is not.

298: 55: 591:

here, not the specific consensual reality common within the clique of Dave Winer. BTW here is one of the first calls to develop Echo, which become Atom:

610:

should include at least some research into, and a sympathetic presentation of, the consensual reality of people who are not strong supporters of Atom.

2521: 2124:. Why is a page about Atom advertising Minecraft? Rather than link to this page, it could be more helpful to improve the Knowledge (XXG) article. 1485:

I landed on this page looking for information about the Atom Publishing Protocol. In fact, I followed a disambiguation link for "APP" to get here.

1215:

Done, and without even mentioning Slashdot. I just didn't want it to be perceived as an edit war. Feel free to adjust my changes as you see fit.

274: 96: 330:

Just want to let it be known that Reference link #4 is a bogus link. I'd edit it, but I want it verified, plus I'm still new to Knowledge (XXG).

2511: 768:

Hey Betsy! Great to see you again. Of course, I spent the last three days bring this article up to speed. (Anyways, let's remember that

41: 2181: 741:

I don't think that copying the RSS article and posting it here as an Atom article is a sensible way to create Knowledge (XXG) content.

261: 238: 110: 2396:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2386: 2017: 1946: 1315:, which underlies their mail and calendar products. Knowledge (XXG) articles report facts, regardless of their "utter stupidity". 115: 31: 1781: 2106:? I found it difficult to read and understand RFC specification to get anything. Maybe it worth to put this link in Resources?-- 884: 179: 85: 1600:

does not really need to take sides between the two protocols. Here is some existing language that I think might be toned down:

213: 146: 398: 401:

standard, Atom is not". If such a statement is to stand, it needs to qualify which versions of RSS it is talking about. --

76: 694:(5) iTunes, the permiere pod casting application support Atom podcasts. I think you are again trying to make a POV claim. 2311: 2461: 2276: 2327: 2294: 1927:

I think it is objectively one of the most comprehensive page on Atom Publishing Protocol and Atom Syndication Format.

1399:

If someone who understood WSSE wanted to add something to the article, that would be welcome. Our current article on

587:(3) Can you address those points? I'll then build upon your changes. Please remember that I am trying to represent 2376: 756:

reflect only one side's version of the controversy, praising one format while denigrating or minimizing its rivals.

2485: 1435:

It would be nice if this page would link to or supply a list of programs etc. that can be used to read Atom feeds.

140: 1645:

read the referenced article, "Why We Need Echo", but didn't see any mention of RSS dialects or incompatibilities.

120: 1898: 1861: 394: 2417:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2232:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

2482: 1971: 1801: 351: 1929:

Since 1 week has passed and no one has objected based on any concrete reason should I add it to the main page.

1289: 219: 136: 2493: 2452: 2362: 2267: 2173: 2299: 1934: 674:

According to the specification: "...the RSS spec is, for all practical purposes, frozen at version 2.0.1".

695: 186: 66: 2436:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2424: 2251:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

2239: 2084: 2064:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

1942: 1454: 273:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2361:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2172:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 81: 2182:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060717202415/http://travel2.nytimes.com:80/2006/01/29/travel/29prac.html

2139:

Here's an external link which could be useful as an intro to make the IETF docs look less terrifying:

1958:

External links: somebody please prune the evangelism and motivation sections (what is the difference?)

2206: 2129: 2042: 1894: 1876: 1857: 1839: 1824: 1820: 1777: 1717: 1693: 1634: 1408: 722:

Atom may be used for podcasting, but RSS 2.0 is probably in more common use for podcasting than Atom.

331: 201: 1967: 1797: 1646: 1477: 1403:

makes no mention of Atom. Possibly Atom is just a user of that spec. If you know, please comment.

1257: 1179: 1115: 918: 888: 858: 836: 818: 800: 757: 742: 702: 686: 654: 611: 549: 498: 462: 347: 335: 270: 172: 35: 2332: 2303: 2143: 1732: 1566: 1531: 1517: 1216: 1145: 592: 402: 368: 2489: 2387:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071018010134/http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atompub-charter.html

2140: 2107: 2018:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070301043011/http://www.ibm.com:80/developerworks/library/x-atompp1/

1650: 1389: 1006: 2421:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

2236:

before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template

1923: 1920: 1029: 2437: 2252: 2065: 424:

It would be good to have more info on what is considered to be improvements in Atom over RSS. —

152: 2336: 2307: 2147: 1999: 1736: 1677: 1605: 796: 445:

in external links lists them. Perhaps someone should copy the gist or ask Sam to summarise? --

372: 62: 1963: 1764:

Not clear that the dialects mentioned are still in wide use (so 'wide use' lacks a reference)

1750:

Matt Brubeck partly fixed a problem with a too-general claim about RSS incompatibility, with

2112: 2080: 1938: 1604:

The development of Atom was motivated by the existence of many incompatible versions of the

2444: 2370: 2259: 2185: 2072: 1793: 2354: 2165: 2125: 2007: 1989: 1872: 1835: 1773: 1713: 1689: 1630: 1597: 1404: 1365: 1299: 1026: 449: 425: 2477: 2390: 2326:

Would it be worthwhile to add a new section describing OData and how it works with Atom?

442: 2403:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2218:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by 2021: 985: 548:

many content providers offer Atom feeds; I think it's misleading to imply that all do.

435: 386: 2443:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2410: 2258:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

2225: 2071:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

792: 2505: 1848:

The standard Knowledge (XXG) links for RFCs are HTML versions, not plaintext. How is

1542:

What does everyone else think? You can see my former rewrite in the article history.

1436: 1385: 1316: 975: 1608:

syndication format, all of which had shortcomings, and the poor interoperability of

17: 2328:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata-atom-format/v4.0/odata-atom-format-v4.0.html

2295:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/odata/odata-atom-format/v4.0/odata-atom-format-v4.0.html

1849: 1816: 1673: 1495: 769: 1342: 1311:

Nevertheless, Atom allows extension, and Google (for one) has extended it to be a

2377:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060208154438/http://backend.userland.com/2003/06/26

1298:

It is a syndication format. Shoehorning other data into it is utter stupidity. --

1400: 1378: 1312: 416: 2497: 2466: 2409:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2340: 2315: 2281: 2224:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 2151: 2133: 2114: 2092: 1975: 1950: 1902: 1880: 1865: 1843: 1828: 1805: 1740: 1721: 1697: 1681: 1654: 1638: 1579: 1576: 1569: 1559: 1556: 1546: 1543: 1534: 1520: 1498: 1480: 1450: 1439: 1412: 1393: 1368: 1319: 1302: 1292: 1260: 1219: 1182: 1148: 1118: 1092: 1089: 1055: 1052: 988: 978: 951: 921: 891: 861: 839: 821: 803: 788: 773: 760: 745: 705: 657: 614: 552: 501: 465: 452: 446: 428: 419: 405: 376: 355: 339: 1382: 1345:'s project notification (with DOAP "shoehorned" into it) is a good example. 1468:, I copied the earliest history over to the new article, then went back to 2380: 1033: 2004:

after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add

1885:

I did compare the pages, otherwise I wouldn't have expressed my opinion.

1621: 1609: 1086:

A brief description of the main issues of RSS 2.0 addressed by Atom 1.0

266: 2059:

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

642: 253: 232: 1853: 2012:

to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

1624:-based publishing protocols were not sufficiently interoperable. 1453:

were largely solved when somebody created a separate article for

1745: 1374: 2141:

https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-atom10/index.html

1469: 1465: 1364:

It'd be cool if the article talked about WSSE authentication.

701:

rejected by iTunes, despite their claim that they support it?

390: 195: 26: 1921:

http://library.skjworld.com/internet/atom-publishing-protocol

1088:, if there is no one who wish to write neutral comparission. 2191:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

2027:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

265:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of notable 569:

Atom is common, as anyone that cares to look will discover.

2365:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2176:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

1457:. This seems like a possible solution for web feeds also. 2121: 1856:

to justify not using the IETF link used everywhere else?

2371:

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/travel/29prac.html

2186:

http://travel2.nytimes.com/2006/01/29/travel/29prac.html

1988:

I have just added archive links to one external link on

2358: 2169: 1993: 1751: 1709: 2391:

http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/atompub-charter.html

1288:

Atom could "replace" SOAP for conveying web services.

443:

http://www.intertwingly.net/pie/Rss20AndAtom10Compared

171: 2472:(standard), better (Cloud standard) or (Web standard) 2022:

http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/x-atompp1/

1332:

It seems clear atom is also a "publishing protocol."

436:

http://www.itconversations.com/shows/detail1155.html

2413:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 2228:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors 1746:'Multiple incompatible versions of RSS in wide use' 185: 1445:New article: History of web syndication technology 1256:Editwars--, SamRuby++ You've improved it, thanks. 1472:and re-phrased that earliest history as summary. 1850:http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/rfc5023.html 1817:http://bitworking.org/projects/atom/rfc5023.html 1016:As XML applications developer, I think that the 393:and other similar applications are based on the 44:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1919:I propose for addition of the following link : 2399:This message was posted before February 2018. 2214:This message was posted before February 2018. 1049:Results 1 - 100 of about 4,290,000,000 for rss 1045:Results 1 - 100 of about 377,000,000 for atom 653:People from both sides of the fence, I hope. 8: 2297: 2164:I have just modified one external link on 2120:Here is a clickable version of that link: 1427:Thanks --Dan 19:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC) 227: 2353:I have just modified 3 external links on 1754:. Four qualifiers I'd still like to see: 1616:How about replacing it with this version: 917:above in response to your criticism. -- 1815:There's an HTML version of RFC 5023 -- 1353:Not much to see here. & < : --> 229: 199: 2381:http://backend.userland.com/2003/06/26 283:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Podcasting 2203:to let others know (documentation at 2039:to let others know (documentation at 7: 606:IMO. Somebody who understands that 415:Merge completed and notice removed. 259:This article is within the scope of 885:Knowledge (XXG):No_personal_attacks 218:It is of interest to the following 34:for discussing improvements to the 2517:Top-importance podcasting articles 1854:http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5023 25: 2357:. Please take a moment to review 2168:. Please take a moment to review 1992:. Please take a moment to review 1704:See Also sections can be overdone 61:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 2050: 1504:Atom vs. RSS 2.0 section cleanup 252: 231: 200: 56:Click here to start a new topic. 2522:WikiProject Podcasting articles 2369:Corrected formatting/usage for 1670:Atom also supports enclosures. 1666:RSS 2.0 support for enclosures 1592:Neutrality between Atom and RSS 1047:(not really about atom feeds), 950:Compare Betsy's adjustments to 474:NPOV problems with this article 389:made an edit that said "Unlike 303:This article has been rated as 286:Template:WikiProject Podcasting 1758:This is Mark Pilgrim's opinion 1: 2093:11:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC) 1951:13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 1481:03:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC) 1440:02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 1261:03:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1220:02:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1183:02:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC) 1149:20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 1119:19:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC) 979:02:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 922:00:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 892:22:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 862:21:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 840:21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 822:13:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 804:21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 761:04:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 746:21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 706:21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 658:21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 615:21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 553:21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 502:21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 406:03:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC) 362:APP / AtomPub never mentioned 277:and see a list of open tasks. 53:Put new text under old text. 2498:16:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 2282:00:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC) 1903:21:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 1881:14:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 1866:07:47, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 1844:02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC) 1829:23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC) 1806:17:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC) 1761:This was his opinion in 2004 1639:02:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC) 1612:-based publishing protocols. 1349:testing Knowledge (XXG) feed 466:23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 2512:C-Class podcasting articles 2134:17:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 2115:12:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 1782:13:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) 1383:XML.com: Atom Authetication 1093:10:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC) 453:15:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 356:19:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 340:19:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 271:podcast-related information 2538: 2486:ANCAP (commodity standard) 2430:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2350:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2245:(last update: 5 June 2024) 2161:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 2010:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 1985:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 1722:17:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC) 1413:18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 1394:16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC) 1369:18:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC) 1056:09:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC) 309:project's importance scale 2467:12:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC) 2341:12:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 2316:12:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 2152:12:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC) 2102:Is there any? What about 1976:15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC) 1915:External Links Discussion 1741:03:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 1698:03:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 1682:01:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 1655:21:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC) 1580:00:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC) 1570:21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 1560:03:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 1535:01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 1521:01:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC) 1320:05:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 989:20:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC) 395:World Wide Web Consortium 377:19:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 302: 247: 226: 91:Be welcoming to newcomers 2483:WIDL (Internet Standard) 1547:21:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC) 1499:01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC) 1313:general purpose data API 1303:15:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC) 1018:Atom Compared to RSS 2.0 1009:02:27, 01 July 2006 (ET) 429:22:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC) 420:22:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC) 2346:External links modified 2157:External links modified 1981:External links modified 1377:currently redirects to 1293:09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 2122:http://atomenabled.org 1626: 1614: 1283:Atom in other contexts 262:WikiProject Podcasting 208:This article is rated 86:avoid personal attacks 2098:Official website link 1618: 1602: 1455:History of podcasting 772:is a close friend of 212:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 111:Neutral point of view 2411:regular verification 2226:regular verification 1996:. If necessary, add 1962:In consideration of 1661:Barriers to adoption 116:No original research 18:Talk:Atom (standard) 2401:After February 2018 2216:After February 2018 2195:parameter below to 2031:parameter below to 1419:XML Schema for Atom 1360:WSSE Authentication 1290:SylvainHellegouarch 289:podcasting articles 36:Atom (web standard) 2455:InternetArchiveBot 2406:InternetArchiveBot 2270:InternetArchiveBot 2221:InternetArchiveBot 1373:Additionally, the 441:The Sam Ruby link 214:content assessment 97:dispute resolution 58: 2431: 2322:OData Atom Format 2318: 2302:comment added by 2287:OData Atom Format 2246: 2091: 1954: 1937:comment added by 594:. (said Bhouston) 323: 322: 319: 318: 315: 314: 194: 193: 77:Assume good faith 54: 16:(Redirected from 2529: 2465: 2456: 2429: 2428: 2407: 2280: 2271: 2244: 2243: 2222: 2210: 2110: 2105: 2087: 2086:Talk to my owner 2082: 2057: 2054: 2053: 2046: 2011: 2003: 1953: 1931: 1317:C. Scott Ananian 1036: 1024:and accurate. — 697:(says Bhouston) 688:(said BDevine) 644:(said BDevine) 291: 290: 287: 284: 281: 256: 249: 248: 243: 235: 228: 211: 205: 204: 196: 190: 189: 175: 106:Article policies 27: 21: 2537: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2502: 2501: 2474: 2459: 2454: 2422: 2415:have permission 2405: 2363:this simple FaQ 2355:Atom (standard) 2348: 2324: 2289: 2274: 2269: 2237: 2230:have permission 2220: 2204: 2174:this simple FaQ 2166:Atom (standard) 2159: 2108: 2104:atomenabled.org 2103: 2100: 2090: 2085: 2055: 2051: 2040: 2005: 1997: 1990:Atom (standard) 1983: 1960: 1932: 1917: 1813: 1789: 1748: 1729: 1706: 1663: 1598:Atom (standard) 1596:Our article on 1594: 1506: 1447: 1433: 1421: 1362: 1355:<random: --> 1351: 1285: 1025: 476: 413: 384: 364: 328: 288: 285: 282: 279: 278: 241: 209: 132: 127: 126: 125: 102: 72: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 2535: 2533: 2525: 2524: 2519: 2514: 2504: 2503: 2473: 2470: 2449: 2448: 2441: 2394: 2393: 2385:Added archive 2383: 2375:Added archive 2373: 2347: 2344: 2323: 2320: 2288: 2285: 2264: 2263: 2256: 2189: 2188: 2180:Added archive 2158: 2155: 2137: 2136: 2099: 2096: 2083: 2077: 2076: 2069: 2025: 2024: 2016:Added archive 1982: 1979: 1968:betsythedevine 1959: 1956: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1890: 1886: 1812: 1809: 1798:GaryColemanFan 1788: 1785: 1769: 1768: 1765: 1762: 1759: 1747: 1744: 1728: 1725: 1705: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1668: 1667: 1662: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1593: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1505: 1502: 1478:betsythedevine 1446: 1443: 1432: 1429: 1420: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1361: 1358: 1354:<title: --> 1350: 1347: 1340: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1306: 1305: 1284: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1258:betsythedevine 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1180:betsythedevine 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1116:betsythedevine 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1038: 1037: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 992: 991: 970: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 961: 960: 959: 958: 957: 956: 955: 935: 934: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 889:betsythedevine 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 847: 846: 845: 844: 843: 842: 837:betsythedevine 827: 826: 825: 824: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 801:betsythedevine 780: 779: 778: 777: 758:betsythedevine 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 743:betsythedevine 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 708: 703:betsythedevine 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 655:betsythedevine 639: 638: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 622: 621: 620: 619: 618: 617: 612:betsythedevine 598: 597: 596: 595: 579: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 570: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 550:betsythedevine 540: 539: 538: 537: 527: 526: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 520: 509: 508: 507: 506: 505: 504: 499:betsythedevine 489: 488: 487: 486: 475: 472: 471: 470: 469: 468: 456: 455: 412: 411:Old Discussion 409: 387:User:Toussaint 383: 380: 363: 360: 359: 358: 348:betsythedevine 327: 324: 321: 320: 317: 316: 313: 312: 305:Top-importance 301: 295: 294: 292: 275:the discussion 257: 245: 244: 242:Top‑importance 236: 224: 223: 217: 206: 192: 191: 129: 128: 124: 123: 118: 113: 104: 103: 101: 100: 93: 88: 79: 73: 71: 70: 59: 50: 49: 46: 45: 39: 24: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2534: 2523: 2520: 2518: 2515: 2513: 2510: 2509: 2507: 2500: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2490:In ictu oculi 2488:etc. Cheers. 2487: 2484: 2479: 2471: 2469: 2468: 2463: 2458: 2457: 2446: 2442: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2426: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2402: 2397: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2372: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2351: 2345: 2343: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2321: 2319: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2301: 2296: 2292: 2286: 2284: 2283: 2278: 2273: 2272: 2261: 2257: 2254: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2241: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2217: 2212: 2208: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2162: 2156: 2154: 2153: 2149: 2145: 2142: 2135: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2113: 2111: 2097: 2095: 2094: 2088: 2081: 2074: 2070: 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2048: 2044: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2013: 2009: 2001: 1995: 1991: 1986: 1980: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1957: 1955: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1930: 1925: 1924: 1922: 1914: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1811:RFC 5023 Link 1810: 1808: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1795: 1786: 1784: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1766: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1753: 1743: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1726: 1724: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1665: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1625: 1623: 1617: 1613: 1611: 1607: 1601: 1599: 1591: 1581: 1578: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1558: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1545: 1536: 1533: 1529: 1528: 1526: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1503: 1501: 1500: 1497: 1493: 1490: 1486: 1483: 1482: 1479: 1473: 1471: 1467: 1462: 1458: 1456: 1452: 1444: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1430: 1428: 1425: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1367: 1359: 1357: 1348: 1346: 1344: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1301: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1291: 1282: 1262: 1259: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1184: 1181: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1150: 1147: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1120: 1117: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1028: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1014: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 995: 994: 993: 990: 987: 983: 982: 981: 980: 977: 971: 953: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 923: 920: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 893: 890: 886: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 863: 860: 855: 854: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 841: 838: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 823: 820: 815: 814: 813: 812: 805: 802: 798: 794: 789: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 775: 771: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 759: 747: 744: 740: 739: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 707: 704: 699: 698: 696: 693: 692: 691: 690: 689: 687: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 659: 656: 652: 651: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 643: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 616: 613: 609: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 593: 590: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 554: 551: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 535: 534: 533: 532: 531: 517: 516: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 503: 500: 495: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 484: 483: 482: 481: 480: 473: 467: 464: 460: 459: 458: 457: 454: 451: 448: 444: 440: 439: 438: 437: 431: 430: 427: 422: 421: 418: 410: 408: 407: 404: 400: 396: 392: 388: 381: 379: 378: 374: 370: 361: 357: 353: 349: 344: 343: 342: 341: 337: 333: 325: 310: 306: 300: 297: 296: 293: 276: 272: 268: 264: 263: 258: 255: 251: 250: 246: 240: 237: 234: 230: 225: 221: 215: 207: 203: 198: 197: 188: 184: 181: 178: 174: 170: 166: 163: 160: 157: 154: 151: 148: 145: 142: 138: 135: 134:Find sources: 131: 130: 122: 121:Verifiability 119: 117: 114: 112: 109: 108: 107: 98: 94: 92: 89: 87: 83: 80: 78: 75: 74: 68: 64: 63:Learn to edit 60: 57: 52: 51: 48: 47: 43: 37: 33: 29: 28: 19: 2475: 2453: 2450: 2425:source check 2404: 2398: 2395: 2352: 2349: 2331: 2325: 2298:— Preceding 2293: 2290: 2268: 2265: 2240:source check 2219: 2213: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2190: 2163: 2160: 2138: 2101: 2078: 2058: 2049: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2026: 1987: 1984: 1961: 1928: 1926: 1918: 1895:Mihai Capotă 1858:Mihai Capotă 1852:better than 1814: 1794:reassessment 1790: 1787:GA delisting 1772:complaints. 1770: 1749: 1730: 1707: 1672: 1669: 1627: 1619: 1615: 1603: 1595: 1541: 1507: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1484: 1474: 1463: 1459: 1448: 1434: 1426: 1422: 1372: 1363: 1356:<xmp: --> 1352: 1339: 1286: 1085: 1048: 1044: 1021: 1017: 1002: 998: 972: 969: 770:Betsy Devine 754: 731: 683: 640: 607: 588: 578: 528: 477: 432: 423: 414: 385: 365: 329: 304: 260: 220:WikiProjects 182: 176: 168: 161: 155: 149: 143: 133: 105: 30:This is the 2207:Sourcecheck 2043:Sourcecheck 1939:Skj.saurabh 1933:—Preceding 1401:WS-Security 1379:WS-Security 919:Ben Houston 859:Ben Houston 819:Ben Houston 463:Ben Houston 159:free images 42:not a forum 2506:Categories 2462:Report bug 2277:Report bug 2126:EdJohnston 1873:EdJohnston 1836:EdJohnston 1821:Ianbicking 1774:EdJohnston 1714:EdJohnston 1690:EdJohnston 1631:EdJohnston 1451:Podcasting 1405:EdJohnston 1366:Mathiastck 1300:Dtcdthingy 1030:2006-07-01 1027:Anrie Nord 1022:is neutral 1001:, not the 999:neutrality 952:Dave Winer 817:do it. -- 774:Dave Winer 426:Christiaan 326:Bogus Link 280:Podcasting 239:Podcasting 2445:this tool 2438:this tool 2260:this tool 2253:this tool 2073:this tool 2066:this tool 1752:this edit 1710:this edit 986:Metamatic 332:Zer0Nin3r 99:if needed 82:Be polite 32:talk page 2451:Cheers.— 2312:contribs 2300:unsigned 2266:Cheers.— 2079:Cheers.— 2000:cbignore 1947:contribs 1935:unsigned 1889:version. 1647:j4_james 1431:Software 1386:KennethJ 1020:section 1003:accuracy 976:Fagstein 267:podcasts 67:get help 40:This is 38:article. 2359:my edit 2333:Jhabdas 2304:Jhabdas 2193:checked 2170:my edit 2144:Jhabdas 2109:wihola 2089::Online 2029:checked 1994:my edit 1964:WP:NPOV 1733:Rektide 1674:Wooptoo 1622:XML-RPC 1610:XML-RPC 1567:SamRuby 1532:SamRuby 1518:SamRuby 1496:Jsandoe 1492:Thanks 1437:Shinobu 1343:CodeZoo 1217:SamRuby 1146:SamRuby 797:Betsy's 608:reality 589:reality 403:SamRuby 369:Rektide 307:on the 210:C-class 165:WP refs 153:scholar 2201:failed 2037:failed 2008:nobots 1007:Loudej 519:fruit. 417:JesseW 216:scale. 137:Google 2478:WP:AT 1708:With 1577:David 1557:David 1544:David 1464:From 1090:Rikis 1053:Rikis 1032:14:47 793:Ben's 447:BozMo 180:JSTOR 141:books 95:Seek 2494:talk 2337:talk 2308:talk 2197:true 2148:talk 2130:talk 2033:true 1972:talk 1943:talk 1899:talk 1877:talk 1862:talk 1840:talk 1825:talk 1802:talk 1778:talk 1737:talk 1718:talk 1694:talk 1678:talk 1651:talk 1635:talk 1409:talk 1390:talk 1375:WSSE 450:talk 373:talk 352:talk 336:talk 269:and 173:FENS 147:news 84:and 2419:RfC 2389:to 2379:to 2234:RfC 2211:). 2199:or 2184:to 2047:). 2035:or 2020:to 1727:APP 1606:RSS 1470:RSS 1466:RSS 795:. 399:RDF 397:'s 391:RSS 382:RDF 299:Top 187:TWL 2508:: 2496:) 2432:. 2427:}} 2423:{{ 2339:) 2314:) 2310:• 2247:. 2242:}} 2238:{{ 2209:}} 2205:{{ 2150:) 2132:) 2045:}} 2041:{{ 2006:{{ 2002:}} 1998:{{ 1974:) 1949:) 1945:• 1901:) 1879:) 1864:) 1842:) 1827:) 1804:) 1796:. 1780:) 1739:) 1720:) 1696:) 1680:) 1653:) 1637:) 1411:) 1392:) 1381:. 799:. 375:) 367:-- 354:) 338:) 167:) 65:; 2492:( 2464:) 2460:( 2447:. 2440:. 2335:( 2306:( 2279:) 2275:( 2262:. 2255:. 2146:( 2128:( 2075:. 2068:. 2056:Y 1970:( 1941:( 1897:( 1875:( 1860:( 1838:( 1823:( 1800:( 1776:( 1735:( 1716:( 1692:( 1676:( 1649:( 1633:( 1407:( 1388:( 1034:Z 371:( 350:( 334:( 311:. 222:: 183:· 177:· 169:· 162:· 156:· 150:· 144:· 139:( 69:. 20:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index