because it's always seemed redundant to me
why should authors host two copies of the same content
one plain, one fancy?
i thought users should skip the fancy part
and blog in vsimple html
that browsers can parse like rss
but i've grown dependent on 'sage' in firefox
for most of my own browsing
(plus 'update scanner'
for pages w/o rss)
and now i find myself moving more and more feeds
onto google reader
because it actually archives all blogposts
into a single stream (no paging)
which is economically absurd
but very handy
and now you can consolidate many feeds into one 'folder'
that you can read as a single feed
del.icio.us also lets you consolidate feeds
(though you quickly lose track of
sources for 'via' attribution)
and i guess twitter makes this the central principle
but i have no confidence
that twitter's archives will endure
and no social network to start from...
.
