Re: [syndication] New poll for syndication

[Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>]

syndication@egroups.com writes:

> There's been a considerable amount of discussion on the list about
> forking between RSS 1.0 and RSS .92. At the same time, there seems
> to be a need to consider the possible renaming of one or those
> approaches. Should we
> 
>   o rename both? 
>   o rename RSS 1.0? 
>   o rename RSS .92? 
>   o do nothing? 

> http://www.egroups.com/polls/syndication 

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