It isn't clear to me either. I thought it was worthy of a post to
this list because my hope is that the users will settle these issues
at some point, maybe now the time is right. Developers debating
doesn't get us anywhere. The benefits of breakage have to make sense
to users, imho.


--- In rss-user@yahoogroups.com, "Steven Ericsson-Zenith"
<steven@s...> wrote:
>
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >