RE: [syndication] New poll for syndication

["Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de>]

Sorry Ken, but I can not believe it works.

"1.0" becoming "XRSS" as Mark Ketzler suggests makes so much more 
sense IMHO. XRSS represents much better the spirit of "1.0":
  "eXtensible RSS"

Let's not stay in the same mud where we already are now.


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken MacLeod [mailto:ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 18:24
>
> Here's another proposal: Let's all share the name, and have two
> deliverables.
> 
> Let both our groups go to 1.0 together.
> 
> Many people have posted that they see benefit to the RDF+NS approach,
> while at the same time would like to continue with a simple approach.
> 
> The ownership of the name may never be resolved, but all seem to have
> the same general idea of what "RSS" is, regardless of the mechanics.
> 
> All tools will process both RSS0.91+ and RDF+NS RSS files (either
> explicitly, with RDF+NS, or by being RSS0.9 compatible and ignoring
> namespaced elements).
> 
> Both groups are receiving similar requests for enhancements at this
> time (basic enhancements of a few tags).
> 
> I am *not* proposing that we merge working groups, I think that would
> force a strained relationship.  I do recommend a working group be
> formed to foster non-RDF+NS RSS forward movement.
> 
> With this solution, both groups retain the name "RSS" and both
> *branches* (not forks) must have unique names within RSS.
> 
> Thoughts or comments?
> 
>   -- Ken