Talk:Feed URI scheme

But WHY on earth is it needed or even wanted?
Regardless of how many whozits and whatzits support this protocol, the fact remains that it isn't supported in a WinXP installation with up to date installs of MSIE 7, Mozilla SeaMonkey, and Mozilla Firefox installed, so its not just non-standard, its seriously on the fringe of browser markup language. I'm also not sure why something called a "desktop aggregator" can be described as popular when its not only something I haven't heard a lot about, its also something that triggers a spelling error in the browser's spellcheck. The one I had heard of, Flock, I only heard of because it was being pushed on Photobucket users who didn't understand how to use the "Browse" function to upload a photo, or who had some other issue with uploading a photo. If this is what a "desktop aggregator" does, it strikes me that its not new functionality anyways. However, I do think the single line about critics of the protocol is pretty spot on. There is absolutely no functionality described in this article that explains why a new type of URI is needed. The reason so many media players have their own URI is purely related to the use of digital rights prevention designed to prohibit the excercise of fair-use and free speech, such as commentary or parody on online materials. Because this digital raping of the users right to manage the content on their own PC isn't a part of the HTTP or HTML systems, its necessarily an add-on. Why on earth people attempting to market useful, open-source software would feel the need to group themselves into this category on a protocol-level, is beyond me. Stick to MIME-types! Zaphraud 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but most of your comment seems completely unrelated to the article. (Note that a talk-page is for discussing how to improve an article; it is not a forum for general discussion about an article's subject.) —Ruakh TALK 14:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)