David King <david.king@...> writes:

> Is anybody besides me concerned that the name of the standard was
> left up in the air? There was some discussion on the subject and
> even a poll (which had American-like voter turn out). However, the
> WG members as a whole never took a step up to definitively say what
> the name will/should be from here on out. I think something needs
> to be done prior to _any_ release. A WG vote or even a statement
> from the entire WG with their reasons for the selected name would be
> nice.

Likely the release of 1.0 will include an announcement of some type
which be a good place to clear up confusion about the two threads of
evolution. What would be good wording that indicates both versions
are RSS, recognizes both are still valid moving forward, treads gently
around the as yet undecided issue of two branch names, etc? I'm not a
good enough wordsmith myself for that delicate task.

-- Ken