Missing the Point and Making It Anyway
Let's recap some facts. First
RSS 2.0 is locked. It's exactly what it is right now into perpetuity.
Therefore, the RSS spec is, for all practical purposes, frozen at version 2.0.1. We anticipate possible 2.0.2 or 2.0.3 versions, etc. only for the purpose of clarifying the specification, not for adding new features to the format.
Future development to improve upon or otherwise enhance RSS 2.0
is only to happen in new standards and formats.
Subsequent work should happen in modules, using namespaces, and in completely new syndication formats, with new names.
Namespaces could be a viable avenue for adding new functionality and extending RSS 2.0. Dave Winder, the author of RSS 2.0, however, has clouded this potential avenue for growth by recently and repeatedly stating that inclusions via namespace are inappropriate. In
Dave's words they do not respect the RSS 2.0 standard.
So let us revisit the roadmap and remove the uncertain parts. From my limited vantage point, this is what the aforementioned two facts combine to yield.
Refactored: Subsequent work should happen in completely new syndication formats, with new names.
This is exactly what the Echo Project is doing.
RSS 2.0, per its own roadmap is frozen. Locked. Dead. There, I said it. Again.
RSS 2.0, again, per its own roadmap will not evolve into future versions that enhancements or additional capabilities. This is it. Right here right now. RSS as an evolving standard was dead upon the inclusion of its own roadmap.
There is some debate as to how far Echo will go in terms of extending or improving on RSS 2.0. My take is a natural migration path is important, extensive breakage is bad, but some small degree of breakage is inevitable. Maybe breakage can totally be avoided but this seems likely to weaken to overall clarity of Echo.
I personally do not believe, however, that Echo should work to redefine the conceptual model for simple sake of redefinition; I do not believe it should attempt to go too far in its first incarnation. Improve upon the ambiguities, address missing needs in a solid core, and document it with excruciating specificity. Then submit it to a vendor-neutral standards organization meeting relevant and practical criteria. Wholesale advancements can happen in future versions in a pragmatic manner.
This is the most logical progression given the facts as they currently exist.
There are alternative scenarios, but most require the roadmap for RSS 2.0 to change beforehand. What would happen if RSS 2.0 were clarified and re-specified? This is within the roadmap. Mark Nottingham has an IETF draft ready to go. Some of the vagaries of the existing Userland documentation are present in this draft. Clarifying these areas and documenting them in a manner which leaves little or no doubt about what each element represents, what it can legally contain, replacing much of the SHOULD or MAY with MUST-doing these things would do much to eliminate much of the confusion about what is and what is not valid RSS 2.0.
Clarifying the existing documentation is not enough. While some claim this is a battle pitting Dave Winer versus whomever, that this is strictly about politics and personal conflict, it is not. There is no doubt that these things do exist, no doubt whatsoever. I would submit that these just increase certain individuals' predilection to consider and undertake something as difficult and demanding as turning away from a widely popular and useful standard and try to effect an alternative that may only initially offer incremental improvements but add back a future path for evolution.
Not everyone signing the Echo Roadmap has done so out of petty spite or limited character. Not all of these people are ingrates who are willing to cut off their nose solely to spite their face. Some of them may subject that to description, I would wager they're in the vast minority. I believe the vast majority of those who have indicated their future support are doing so because they believe a solid vendor neutral standard is essential and that the time to develop said standard is now, before a large single-party redefines the standard for the community, without its broad input.
I also believe there is a majority who wants a better standard that can evolve in a predictable forward-looking fashion. Not all standards need to evolve to be valuable, many, however, do. The peer-to-peer publishing space is still in its relative infancy in terms of evolution and adoption, there will be improvements, there is ample room and suggestion for them.
These are the real reasons behind the effort as I see it. It's not about Dave, it's not about pettiness, bitterness, frustration and other simple emotions. The community is prone to drama at its edges, not across its spectrum.
For RSS 2.0 to remain the dominant standard, three things could happen. Version 2.0 would need to be re-specified and clarified. It would then need to go to a vendor-neutral standards body meeting the needs of the community, not any single company or group of companies. Finally, the roadmap would need to be modified to allow for future enhancements in the form of future versions. These three things would probably mollify those who want change, but that may just be wishful thinking on my part.
If you hate the notion of a new standard, think about the foregoing. It's not designed to be disrespectful to Dave. Dave is respected, at least in my neck of the woods. I have told him exactly that in no uncertain terms. Leave the guy alone, leave the personal attacks on the playground; they're part of the problem not the solution. I personally don't understand people who see technology and standards as extension of individual personas, but maybe that's just my disposition.