At 4:50 PM +0200 5/16/07, 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?
Yes, and that is a very good suggestion. Let the reader decide which
they want to believe.
