Regarding his comments, the work being done on the draft spec follows
"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."
The work being done on the spec covers the same elements and
attributes as RSS 2.0.1-rv-6. There's been talk here among some
mailing list participants of being more ambitious than that, but
that's part of the territory when you engage in work like this. Those
suggestions haven't been reflected in the draft.
The draft spec effort is as conservative in scope as the last six
revisions published by the advisory board. The goal is to follow all
of 2.0.1-rv-6's clearly specified rules and address the unclear
aspects of RSS that aren't clearly specified, like whether item
description is the only RSS element that can carry HTML.
This is an incremental effort. I agree on the need to stick to the
existing element set as the strongest basis for interoperability, and
all board members who have gone on the record seem to agree as well.
In the original preparation of the draft spec, I fought the temptation
to tinker with the format, even on aspects of RSS that have shown in
hindsight to be less than ideal.
Just to pick one example, the item category element states that
forward slashes be used as delimiters in a value that maps to a hierarchy:
This is unnecessarily restrictive, since different categorization
systems use different techniques (such as tagging, which has no
hierarchy at all). But the language is still there in the draft spec: