I've updated the RSS Profile to version 1.14, incorporating the
following edits:

1. The Introduction removes the recently added requirement that a
namespace MUST NOT extend core RSS elements with attributes.

http://www.rssboard.org/rss-profile#introduction

2. In the same section, the IANA Registry of URI Schemes link has been
fixed.

3. The non-permalink item-guid example now uses the Tag URI scheme:

http://www.rssboard.org/rss-profile#element-channel-item-guid

The clause in asterisks has been added to this section:

"If the guid's isPermaLink attribute has the value "false", the guid
may employ any syntax the channel's publisher has devised for ensuring
the uniqueness of the string, *such as the Tag URI scheme described in
RFC 4151*."

I think this brings the profile in line with the proposed draft spec.

--- In rss-public@yahoogroups.com, Sam Ruby <rubys@...> wrote:
> I personally don't see a need for two separate documents with such
> significant overlap; in fact, I see the profile as a handy way of
> avoiding unnecessary confrontation over ownership of the spec.

The profile's turning out great -- much better than I had originally
expected when the idea was proposed. But I don't see how it can answer
the three big questions about enclosures, HTML markup and relative URLs.

The only way for the board to answer those questions is to deal with
the controversial issue of whether it's acceptable for us to do so.

> My issue isn't with this change being included (it clearly is a
> valuable improvement), my issue is with creating the impression
> that this draft only addresses three key issues. Someplace there
> should be a more comprehensive set of changes listed.

I'd like to get the board's guidance on the three major questions
before looking at minor ones that are much less likely to be
controversial.