Yesterday, I was reading an article somewhere that mentioned in passing that RSS 2.0 is more widely deployed than 1.0 because it's easier. The part of me that has been influenced by Dilbert is arguing that it's really because CEOs are demanding, over the objections of engineers, that they use 2.0 because it's the latest version, so it must be better. But back to reality. I prefer 2.0's relative simplicity and lighter weight. I'm with the club that doesn't feel the need for 1.0's superpowers. For me, newsfeeds just need mild-mannered Clark Kent, not Superman.

On the Atom syntax email list, the "80/20 rule" is mentioned periodically. Roughly described, the idea is that 80 percent of people use only 20 percent of the available features, or is it that only 20 percent even use 80 percent of the features? Who knows. You get the point--it's not worth adding features that are too complex, as cool as they might be, because nobody's going to use them anyway. On top of that, some people won't even bother with the simpler features, because the complex one's scare people off. I'm happy to say that the Atom community has not lost sight of the need for keeping things simple. Hopefully, it will stay that way. In the ongoing discussions, many solutions to various problems are proposed--some simple, some complex. Ideas are pursued to make the complex solutions simpler. And some ideas are rejected (from the Atom core--they can be put into extensions) because they're too complex for the value they provide.

The lesson of RSS 1.0 vs 2.0 (assuming the assertion referred to above is correct--Syndic8's stats indicate the opposite), is, obviously, keep it simple, or people will use something else. If implementing Atom support is more difficult than implementing workarounds for and living with RSS's weaknesses, people will stick with RSS. Even if both are equally difficult, change will come slowly because those who already have RSS support up and running won't feel the need to switch.

It is encouraging to see in the Atom discussion the frequent calls for real-world examples--for considering whether the problem someone is trying to solve is common, or only a issue for a few. If this question continues to play an important role in the discussion, Atom just may end up with 80 percent of the users.