I was going for a single media type for all of RSS, with (IIRC) an optional "version" parameter.
Generally, having a media type identify a particular version of a format is frowned upon; think about HTML, XML, etc. It's for coarse-grained identification of the format.
Of course, given that RSS has separate change controllers, it might be argued that it would be better to have different ones, but I'm not yet convinced; generally, you've got one app that can handle all of the formats; there's no meaningful difference between them.
If I did it again, I'd have encouraged Dave to register 'application/vnd.scripting.rss+xml' or 'application/prs.winer.rss+xml'.
Oh, well.
On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:52 PM, Tim Bray wrote:
On Mar 29, 2005, at 9:47 PM, Mark Nottingham wrote:
I tried; the official response [1] was that the IESG wanted to see an stable and available spec -- by their standards -- for RSS before putting it in the standards tree. Just doing a registration doesn't cut it.
I worked on an RSS 2.0 I-D [2] for a while and then stopped when I got nervous about change control and copyright issues. Given that RSS 2.0 is now hosted at Harvard, it may be that the IESG will consider that a stable enough ref; if not, I'm not nearly as nervous now that it's under a CC license, and I think I could take a crack at the I-D again...
Should that perhaps be "application/rss2+xml"? There are lots of RSSes.
-Tim
-- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
