[georss] Georss schemas

[Gregor J. Rothfuss]

Joshua Lieberman wrote:

> As far as backwards compatibility, we need to figure out whether this  
> is a corrigiendum of 1.0 or a new version which is backward  
> compatible in terms of information, just not in terms of structure.   
> In the latter case, we'd probably have separate namespaces for 1.0  
> and 1.1 which correspond to two schema locations.

my hunch would be to re-roll 1.0 over expecting everyone to upgrade.

> The discussion list and blog are indeed the decision process such as  
> it is, but a lot of the work still needs to be done offline, when  
> opportunity and whiteboard present themselves.

fair enough.

> There is certainly room for discussion of further elements at this or  
> any future time. You proposed some and I proposed some a couple of  
> months ago and there was some discussion which didn't appear to reach  
> a consensus at the time. It can't really be a kitchen sink approach,  
> or rather there is always the option of adding elements to atom, but  
> there is a pretty long list of interoperability, compatibility, and  
> semantic issues to be accounted for in any changes directly to the  
> georss model, even if that leaves it inadequate for some purposes.  
> I'm happy myself to hash them out as time permits, and it isn't  
> always clear that a null response from the mailing list means  
> disapproval, lack of enthusiasm, or just lack of time to respond.

or maybe implementors are largely happy?

> Maybe it's time for the first annual GeoRSS Conference?