Re: [syndication] New poll for syndication

["Mark Ketzler" <mketzler@bizslice.com>]

> "Paulo Gaspar" <Paulo.Gaspar@krankikom.de> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> The mud we are in now is that two groups of people both feel they have
> just as much ownership rights to the name RSS.  Why should the
> original RSS stakeholders who developed RSS 1.0 have the name stolen
> from *them*?  And who are we to tell them that?  I'm not going to
> propose that, I'm most definitely not an original RSS stakeholder.

Just to make the record clear, I also am *not* "an original RSS
stakeholder".  I
do not believe that should stop me from making the rename suggestion
however. If
we can't find a way for the two groups to work together I fear everyone will
lose.

> Since neither group seems likely to budge on that issue, I suspect we
> need to find another solution.

Is this the case, will neither side budge on this? Isn't XRSS by implication
an extensible superset
of RSS? Can the "original RSS stakeholder's" speak to this and explain their
position re: a name
change? Isn't the fragmentation of the RSS community (including the only
actual users!) a higher price
to pay than the effects of a slight name change like XRSS.