Dave Winer sees two groups with different needs.  I don't see the needs as being incompatible, but I do see two groups with different blind spots. 

The proponents of RSS 1.0 appear to be so enamored of RDF that they see the added complexity of an additional ,and somewhat redundant, sequence of items as acceptable overhead.  Rael refers to this as the RDF Tax. 

The proponents of RSS 2.0 appear to have such an aversion to RDF that, despite claims that the goal is simply to document current practice, no consideration appears to have been given to the fact that admin::generatorAgent is used out in the internet.  Instead RSS 2.0 incorporates a generator tag into the core.

My view aligns with Mark Pilgrim's.

  7:57:37 PM   Comment