While we are mulling over the namespace proposal, I'd like the board to consider
some administrative changes that have been long-needed on the RSS 2.0
specification. These edits have no implications to the elements and attributes
that make up the RSS format.

I'd like the board to adopt all of the following five edits to the spec:

1. The spec, unlike the RSS Profile, does not contain a link to the Feed
Validator. I'd like to add this sentence to the About a Document [1] section:
"RSS documents can be tested for validity in the RSS Validator [2]."

2. The About the Document section contains two incorrect statements: "This
document represents the status of RSS as of the Fall of 2002, version 2.0.1. It
incorporates all changes and additions, starting with the basic spec for RSS
0.91 (June 2000) and includes new features introduced in RSS 0.92 (December
2000) and RSS 0.94 (August 2002)."

The reference to RSS 0.94 is incorrect -- that version was withdrawn right after
publication and renumbered as RSS 2.0. Also, the Fall 2002 date and 2.0.1
version number are seven years out of date. The current document version number
and publication date are identified in the Archivist's Note atop the
specification.

I'd like to change these two paragraphs to the single sentence "This document
represents the current status of RSS, incorporating all changes and additions
starting with the basic spec for RSS 0.91 (June 2000) and follows RSS 0.92
(December 2000), RSS 2.0 (August 2002), and RSS 2.0.1 (July 2003)." Each of the
old specs on rssboard.org would be linked in the paragraph.

3. In the Enclosure section [3], the use case for the element is not hosted at
rssboard.org and is intermittently unavailable or slow due to server crashes.
I'd like to change the link to a locally hosted copy of the use case document at
[4]. We're already doing this for other documentation required by the
specification in the cloud [5] and item [6] sections.

4. The Comments section [7] also links to an external document required by the
spec. I'd like to change the link to a locally hosted copy of the document at
[8].

5. The ttl section [9] contains a link to Gnutella that has been broken for
years. I'd like to remove this link.

If you agree with these edits, please second this proposal and we'll begin a
one-week discussion period before a one-week vote.

1: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#aboutThisDocument
2: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-validator
3: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#ltenclosuregtSubelementOfLtitemgt
4: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-enclosures-use-case
5: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#ltcloudgtSubelementOfLtchannelgt
6: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#hrelementsOfLtitemgt
7: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#hrelementsOfLtitemgt
8: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-weblog-comments-use-case
9: http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specification#ltttlgtSubelementOfLtchannelgt