Re: Total confusion in RSS-Land

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

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

> As I already posted today, RSS 1.0 is not backwards compatible and forces
> people in extra complexity even when they do not use the extra power
> (features).

If they don't want the extra power or complexity, don't use it! It's that
simple! We're not forcing this spec down anyone's throat, just making it an
option. 

> Taking the RSS name cuts the evolution of a simpler version. What can the
> "simpletons" do?
> RSS 0.99, RSS 0.99.01.0, 0.99.01.5 ... ???

While I think version numbers are the least of our issues, there are many
options:

RSS 0.100, RSS 2000, RSS-LE, RLS, the list goes on.

> Not very nice huh? Should fork.

I agree -- both options should be allowed, I don't want to force anyone to
use our spec.

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