RE: [syndication] 0.92 divergence from 0.91

[dave.cantrell@gunter.af.mil]

Dave Winer wrote:
>In RSS it's -- How to get the text to conform to the vision of the Netscape
>people, that news items could be structured in the way they wished it
would.

(Dave: this is not aimed at you, but the RSS and syndication communities in
general)

Question: If Netscape has abandoned the format, why do we care what Netscape
thinks RSS should be?

I don't understand all this hand-wringing over this "Netscape vision" thing,
when it was at most a side-show for them. If you  think otherwise, explain
why they removed it from their site?

In my opinion there are only three parties in this issue: The 0.9[n] crowd,
the 1.0 crowd, and the eventual users. Let the two development groups pursue
their formats, let them both make their cases, and then let the users decide
by picking an implementation.

And that may not even be an issue, since transformation is so ridiculously
simple anyway.

(Let's not go into the naming issue, we've been through it already)

Netscape has abandoned the spec, therefore Netscape has lost all rights to a
say in the future of RSS. I don't care what they think, now or in the
future.

-dave