RE: [syndication] Re: RFC: Clearing confusion for RSS, agreement for forward motion

["Rael Dornfest" <rael@oreilly.com>]

Hi,

> From: Dave Winer [mailto:dave@userland.com]

> >>Ad hoc extensions, overloading of elements, and RSS 0.92+ seem
> to suggest
> otherwise.
>
> Look, according to the proposal RSS 0.92 becomes something completely
> different, not called RSS at all, so take it off the table.

Understood.  And what's also understood is that this isn't an RSS 1.0 vs
0.92 issue; it's a matter of non-partisan discussion and decision on whether
or not to adopt RSS-* or anything but RSS as a naming solution.

> I think a collegial community of developers could have worked together to
> extend RSS. I am now giving up on that. Perhaps that isn't clear. You won
> that one.

Again, I ask that we not make this about winning or losing.  It's about a
win-win, which I am (and have been) optimistic about happening.  This is
very much about a community of developers working together to extend RSS to
meet their needs and figuring out ways of interoperating despite different
opinions on just how this should happen.

> I want RSS to be frozen at 0.91.

I know that's what you want.

> You back off, we back off.

This is not about backing off, standing down, or the like.  It's about
stepping forward to the middle.  And it's that middle we're figuring out.

I think part of the problem in this process is the (understandable)
intermingling of "I" and "we," you and the community.

> Be kind to RSS.

Of course.

Rael