> On Jan 31, 2004, at 9:25 AM, Joshua Allen wrote:
>
> > RSS 2.0 is being used by New York Times, Microsoft, and many other
> > "real" organizations to provide feeds to the masses.  It's the safest
> > choice, IMO.
>
> I also think that at this moment in time, RSS 2.0 is the safest choice.
> -Tim
>

By that measure Microsoft provide the safest operating systems. It might not
be the best measure.

In any case RSS 1.0 is used by plenty of "real" organizations. There's
little to differentiate between these two formats on that level. Virtually
every syndication tool of this kind will support both RSS 1.0 and 2.0, so
there's not a deal of difference there either. The only clear difference is
that RDF tools can use RSS 1.0 out of the box. It may not be much used, but
it is there nevertheless. It can be argued that RSS 2.0 is simpler - but the
simplicity is that of underspecification. Below is a note I posted to the
RSS2 list a while ago.

Cheers,
Danny.

[[
Issues I've encountered trying to interpret RSS 2.0 -
What is the significance of the order of the elements?
What is the relationship between a child element from a different namespace
to its parent element in an RSS 2.0 feed?
How should attributes of RSS 2.0 elements from other namespaces be
interpreted?
To what address are relative paths within the feed anchored?

I know you already have these two biggies  -
How should a client handle HTML within elements? (not only title,
description too)
Should link elements be permalinks or should they point to an external page?

Coupla more general questions:
Is there a notion of a valid RSS 2.0 feed, if so what is it?
What does the "description" describe?
]]