James Robertson wrote:
They can disbelieve it all they want. The fact is, there are a large number of namespaced modules for RSS 2.0, and most aggregators support an awful lot of them. In BottomFeeder, it takes me a few minutes to support any new module that seems to be of interest.
So what people 'believe' is irrelevant. Facts are stubborn things.
Now, whether that's the best mechanism for extensibility? That's a good question. I'd have to say that the simple "It's worked so far" argument carries a lot of weight.
That's a good point, though calling them "modules" is kind of overblown. A more interesting question might be which common extensions would be invalid RDF in RSS 1.0. Almost all extensions seem to consist of a single element with a text value. RSS 1.0 seems quite popular, so I wouldn't say the victory is decisive for either approach.
Robert Sayre
