Re: A message to the lurkers on the list

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

Paulo Gaspar <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de> wrote:

> The only way I can still see this solved without a fork is if 1.0 is
> completely backwards compatible. (But I am not holding my breath.)

While I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by backwards-compatible,
backwards-compatibility is a definite goal of 1.0. (For reference, the
definition we use is that an RSS 0.9 parser than ignores extra elements and
attributes should be able to read 1.0 files.)

Could you clarify your definition of backwards compatibility?

Thanks,

-- 
Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com