Original sentence: Especially vocal were those who saw the name "RSS 1.0" as an attempt at hijacking their format.In 2000 RSS was split into two development paths, one that favored flexibility by using RDF, and one that believed that the simplicity of the existing RSS format should be preserved.In August of 2000, a group of developers organized in the rss-dev mailing list published a proposed specification for RSS 1.0.Later in 2000, only ninteen days after the final publication of the RSS 1.0 specification, Winer published RSS 0.92, a minor and (mostly) compatible improvement on RSS 0.91.The new RSS 0.91 dropped the pretense of using RDF.The new, more complicated format was not well-received by many.This format reintroduced  the originally intended RDF and was designed to allow for extension through modules.This resulted in a pure XML format (rather than an XML implementation of RDF) that was incompatible with the earlier version.While it is often stated that RSS 1.0 is derived from and compatible with RSS 0.90, the two formats' use of different namespaces has been cited as a problematic source of incompatibility.While the format was technically valid RDF, it dropped many of the features (such as namespaces) necessary for actual RDF use
Edited sentence: In 2000 RSS was split into two development paths, one that favored modularity by using RDF, and one that believed that the complexity of namespaces should be avoided.In December of 2000, a group of developers organized in the rss-dev mailing list published RSS 1.0 based on the earlier RSS 0.9 instead of RSS 0.91, thereby reintroducing RDF and XML namespaces.Nineteen days later, Winer published RSS 0.92, a minor and (mostly) compatible improvement on RSS 0.91.RSS 1.0 was designed to provide a standard that allows for extension through modules.The new RSS 0.91 dropped the use of RDF, resulting in an XML format that was incompatible with the earlier version