Ok, well, I expect sanity to prevail then. It isn't clear to me exactly why they
felt a version 1.1 was needed in the light of the 2.0 spec. Can you give your
point of view on the relative merits?

Steven

Dave Winer wrote ..
>
>
>
> Steven, I wasn't attempting to drum up support, rather to get on the
> record, so later no one can say that I didn't speak up. I even went
> out of my way to say that the authors probably had good intentions
> (although, practially speaking, I have no idea of their intentions).
> Dave
>
>
> --- In rss-user@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Ericsson-Zenith"
> <steven@s...> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > It seems to me that by attempting to drum up support against RSS
> 1.1 you are, in
> > fact, helping to promote it. If you had just ignored it it may have
> simply gone
> > away.
> >
> > Right now it is becoming a platform for anyone with an axe to grind.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave Winer wrote ..
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Recently a couple of earnest and probably well-intentioned
> developers
> > > proposed another format called RSS that's incompatible with all
> > > others. This is a bad idea.
> > >
> > > More here: http://www.reallysimplesyndication.com/2005/01/23#a285
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>