Nothing new and nothing surprising. I'd be happier with removing all references to RSS in the document. It's a simple matter to write up a few blog posts describing the use of the spec with RSS.
- James A. Pagaltzis wrote: > * Sam Ruby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-16 16:10]: >> Mark Nottingham wrote: >>> Thanks, Roger. After looking over the links that Randy and >>> others kindly forwarded, consulting with the AD, and hearing >>> nothing from Dave, it looks like we'll go with this link. >> Did you check Dave's weblog? He's recently restored, and is >> actively promoting, an alternate link: >> >> http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/04/30/wikipediaEditing.html >> >> These dueling versions of the RSS 2.0 specification differ in >> minor details (e.g., range of skipHours), major features >> (permissability namespaced attributes on existing RSS >> elements), and roadmap. > > So evidence confirms experience anew: RSS always has involved > politics and always will. > > I propose that this spec stay out of it. To me it does not seem > reasonable to take a political stand on behalf of the reader. > > So if conceivable, include both links (with a caveat lector if > necessary). Is that a possibility? > > Regards,
