Mark Nottingham: RSS needs a bit of stablity (as I've often said), so I've gotten off of my duff and done something about it. For your interest, an Internet-Draft of RSS 2.0.
I'm about as ambivalent as Dave Winer on this one. Mark's RSS feed is RSS 1.0. At least it is valid. His contribution to stability? Reformatting the 2.0 spec won't make it any more stable. I also fail to see it making it any more widely followed.
Ambivalent is a good word for it.
As far as I can tell, the Internet Draft doesn't outlaw extensions by namespaces, so wild-west extensions like wfw:comment and xhtml:body would still be allowed.
While we may have squatters rights to the application/rss+xml mime type, the proper work to register it hasn't been done, yet. So this would fix a hole where RSS hasn't been playing nicely.
On the other hand, this does leave 1.0 out in the cold as it makes 2.0 look like the blessed standard.
See my comments on your other entry, which apply equally here: