Re: RSS 1.0 vs. RSS 0.9*

[Matt Sergeant <matt@sergeant.org>]

On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Dave Winer wrote:

> David, I don't see the boom in support for the RDF-based format. Further,
> since it's not backward compatible with previous version, it would be better
> to make that clear up front so that people don't have to wade through all
> the docs and modules and other specs to find out that it actually isn't RSS
> at all, in any technical sense. It would be as if I came out with XML 1.1
> and dropped support for attributes and put them in a namespace. I'm sure
> that wouldn't go over well with all the people who had deployed XML 1.0
> apps, and it should be explained and disclaimed upfront, imho.

Umm, is 0.91 backwards compatible with 0.9 ?

FWIW, 1.0 *is* backwards compatible with 0.9, just not backwards
compatible with 0.91. This was because (I assume) the guys behind 1.0
decided 0.9 was a better base design to start from.

Will we be seeing 0.92 feeds just because Frontier will release new code
to support it, or are you aware of people actively implementing 0.92 based
code for the popular web languages out there?

Matt.