When building an RSS feed, why would someone use the extension .rss versus .xml? I have a functioning RSS feed written in xml and a client is requesting the feed be delivered in .rss format. As far as I can tell, the extension name seems arbitrary. Yet when I save the file with an .rss extension, the feed does not display in the browser and I get a 404 error. The site runs an Interwoven CMS, powered by ASP.NET. The server type is Microsoft-IIS/7.5 and content type set to text/html.
Using .xml versus .rss [closed]
- Thread starter aduycuong
- Start date