Atom is technically superior to RSS for content syndication, especially for title encoding

Atom's Technical Advantages Over RSS

Atom is technically superior to RSS, a fact acknowledged by many with knowledge of feed technologies. Despite this, many continue to use RSS, often due to unfamiliarity with Atom or a perception that the differences are minor. All modern feed readers support Atom, with the exception of some podcast platforms.

Surface-Level Differences and Practical Issues

Many differences between Atom and RSS are considered surface-level or have become less problematic over time. For instance, RSS's non-standard date format and ambiguous content encoding (whether <description> is text or HTML) were once significant issues. However, current practices often assume HTML for content, and the RSS 2.0 specification has settled on this interpretation, though the use of content:encoded remains common.

The historical issue of RSS referring to multiple incompatible formats with similar version numbers is often mitigated by ignoring XML namespaces and adapting to the feeds encountered.

Critical Differences: Title Encoding Semantics

A key difference that significantly impacts content expression is title encoding semantics. RSS cannot reliably handle special characters like '<' or '&' or HTML tags within titles. This limitation is problematic for content management systems that allow markup in headings but not in titles, preventing the use of elements like <code> or <em> in article titles.

Atom addresses this by defining 'text constructs,' which explicitly specify whether a value is plain text, entity-encoded HTML, or XML-encoded HTML. This clarity ensures that titles and other content can be reliably expressed without ambiguity, unlike in RSS where content encoding semantics are often undefined.