NOTE: This is part 11 of a 12-part CONTENTIOUS tutorial, What Are Webfeeds (RSS), and Why Should You Care? (Full table of contents available on that main page.)
Right now, webfeeds are most commonly called RSS feeds, because that is the name used by the programmers who invented the underlying technology of webfeeds as well as by early adopters (who are, for the most part, fairly technically minded). RSS is also the name of the technical standard on which most webfeeds are currently based.
Key distinction: Webfeeds are a communication medium. In contrast, RSS feeds (and Atom feeds, based on the Atom standard) are particular implementations of webfeeds. In other words, an RSS feed is a type of webfeed.
CONTENTIOUS is working to clarify this important distinction by refining the terminology. This effort is a bit controversial, I know….
There has been considerable resistance among early adopters to introducing a popular nickname like “webfeed.” These people have grown strongly accustomed to saying “RSS feed,” and they’re generally uncomfortable with any new alternative – even though many of them admit they aren’t terribly fond of “RSS feed” either!
However, the vast majority of people who use the Internet are not computer geeks. These are people who relate well to terms like Web, e-mail and chat, but who tend to be put off by technical acronyms. When you’re talking about a communication medium (rather than technology on which it’s based), it’s typically more effective to speak in descriptive terms rather than acronyms.
Here’s what I mean: “RSS” stands for Really Simple Syndication or RDF Site Summary, take your pick. Since the average Net user probably wants to read feeds, not publish or republish them, “syndication” is not very appropriate for a general audience. The second translation of “RSS” is actually a nested acronym – to explain RSS you also have to explain RDF. (But don’t bother, because by the time you get that far into the acronyms your general audience will have tuned out completely.)
Nontechnical people have as much right as technogeeks to understand, use, and enjoy the benefits of webfeeds – perhaps even more so, since they vastly outnumber the geeks, even online!
This is why CONTENTIOUS held a contest in early 2004 to find a more intuitive, descriptive nickname for “RSS feed.” The winning nickname was “webfeed.” Admittedly it’s not a perfect solution (nobody seems thrilled about it), but for the time being I’m starting to use that nickname in CONTENTIOUS to see how well it works.
If this nickname catches on, fine. If another does, I’ll probably switch. I’m also willing to abandon this approach to terminology if it proves to be an obstacle to communication, rather than an aid. We’ll see what happens.

That’s a good point — one the judges of this contest (including myself) wrestled with. However, the goal of this contest was to come up with a *single* nickname that would address the concept of an online feed without tying it to a specific technical standard.
Feeds can carry all sorts of content — indeed, they often mix different kinds of content in the same feed. So I think the content-type-based distinction you suggest probably would end up being inaedquate, too.
Ultimately, I think it’s simpler to just have a single term to communicate the concept. In my mind, “webfeed” and “feed” can be used interchangeably, but for non-geeks “webfeed” effectively communicates that we’re talking about online media.
It’s not a perfect solution, I know. But then again, nothing is.
- Amy Gahran
Editor, CONTENTIOUS
To me the Web is an infrastructure, a medium itself. So, I don’t see well webfeed being an ideal term.
My humble suggestion is to use a term that clearly indicates what is carried inside the feed.
E.g.: newsfeed, eventfeed, schedulefeed, pricecomparisonfeed.
To the end user, it doesn’t matter what protocol the carrier is using (RSS, ATOM, SDF, etc.), but only the type of content being transported.
In your previous comment, you naturally fell into using the term “feed” instead of “webfeed”. “Feed” does get away from the geekiness of “web” but is still somewhat geeky. Consider the term, “channel”; it has a reasonable connotation in both the technical and non-technical worlds.
Lay people intuitively understand “Channel”. It is also the (technical) concept underlying RSS.
A channel is simply a conduit for information–television programs, news headlines, radio talk shows, or weblog items.
I noticed that at the bottom of this post it says “RSS feed for comments on this post.” May you should change that to say “webfeed.”
It’s about movement of data/content (in time); not places where
data/content resides. A word which I’ve been noticing lately, which I think sums
this up nicely, is momentum. Portability is another word I like – not tied to one
place…