RE: [syndication] More thoughts...

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

> From: Mark Nottingham [mailto:mnot@mnot.net]

> I don't think we're ready for a poll right yet.

I neither agree or disagree with that statement; I only believe that we need
a poll at some point.

> Question -
>
> How about 0.9x (all of them) keeps the RSS name, 1.0 goes to
> RSS-Semantic?

RSS.+ was bandied about on several occasions, but that too was flat-out
refused, as was (and is) anything containing the grouping of letters, "RSS."
My initial proposal way back when was called RSSx; xRSS also has a nice ring
to it, the x standing for extensible, true to popular culture's love of the
letter X and being tired of e.

> This is a compromise. There is an argument that it will be confusing
> to users, but no more than the difference between 0.9 and 0.91, I
> think. It says that yes, the RDF tree came out of the same swamp, but
> they're on a different track now. 0.9x arguably has the moral
> advantage (to balance the half-name-change), as it is the root;

Despite my willingness, personally, to concede 0.91 as a root/trunk, I'm not
sure that I would agree that 0.9x is the root over 0.9, which, as you state,
is more like 1.0 anyway.  This is neither here nor there, aside from more
willingness to compromise from my point of view.

> -semantic is a subclass, a special case, an anomoly, if you will.

I'm not so sure I'd phrase it in such a loaded fashion.

Rael