When I covered this subject originally, the spec's subtitle -- which dubbed it an "initial draft" -- threw me off about how long it has been under development.
As the Rough Guide to RSS 1.1 explains, Palmer has been working on his proposal since at least September 2002.
I don't heart RDF, so I have no opinion on whether 1.1 should replace 1.0. I just hope that if Palmer and Schmidt cannot ultimately reach an agreement with the RSS-DEV Working Group to mothball 1.0, they will withdraw their spec rather than put three active, competing RSS formats in circulation.
All comments are moderated before publication. These HTML tags are permitted: <p>, <b>, <i>, <a>, and <blockquote>. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA (for which the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply).