Well, let me just reiterate that if the board intends solely to
clarify the spec, I'll toss roses your way. Unresolved issues such
as whether markup is supported in elements other than description
continue to be a burden to RSS developers, end users and feed
producers alike. In the past week alone I've dealt with three
separate bug reports that were caused by HTML in elements other than
description, and I'd love to stop spending time on this sort of
thing.

The last thing the RSS community needs, though, is yet another
public battle - and I guarantee that a new version of RSS would
result in just that (and I don't mean that as a threat, because I
wouldn't participate). I believe these issues can be dealt with
without requiring a new version of RSS, since the existing spec is
so vague to start with. If the existing spec said that HTML is
permitted in titles and the RSS Advisory Board said that it isn't,
that would be a change. But the spec makes no mention of this, so
what you're doing is clarification based on experience (and the
Board members have plenty of experience to back them up).

--- In rss-public@yahoogroups.com, "rcade" <rcade@...> wrote:
>
> The answer depends on how you feel about resolving the unknowable
> question of whether RSS, as specified in RSS 2.0.1-rv-6, allows
HTML
> markup in elements other than an item's description.
>
> If we resolve that huge problem for RSS implementers, are we
> clarifying the RSS specification or creating a new version of RSS?
>
> I believe Randy's idea is the best way to handle that question: The
> proposed spec has version 2.0.1 in the rss version attribute, not
2.0.
> Consider it a minor incremental update to RSS, no different in
nature
> than the six minor incremental updates the board made from July
2003
> to January 2005.
>