Dave sent me a link to what he means by funky.

"A feed is funky if it uses extensions to provide information that can be expressed by core elements.

"If everyone strives to not be funky, then it becomes trivially easy to write aggregators, and new entrants to the market can get in quickly and at low cost, and users get more choice.

If we were to go the opposite way, with every source of feeds inventing their own replacements for core RSS 2.0 elements, the cost to enter would become increasingly high, and it becomes more likely that programs will express compatibility in terms of products, not formats. So "funky" is anti-interop; and "not funky" is pro-interop." – Dave Winer

He also adds:

"I never wanted to have to define this, because I hoped the issue would go away, quickly. But the people who could have done something about it refused to, so the wound festered. The problem, imho, isn't the term, but the practice. People should try to follow the spec, and if they don't we should ask them to explain why.

BTW, I don't think it's cool to repeat information two or more times in a feed. That makes it more complicated to understand. Keep it simple. That's the value of RSS. Anyone who can understand a little HTML can understand RSS. That's important!" – Dave Winer

I still like my Funkyness Illustrated post better.  Words are so…tiring.  I wonder how much exercise value Playboy foldouts have on its readers.  FYI, I am talking about neck tilting and stretching in case you were thinking other things.

<

p dir=”ltr”>UPDATE: Unless I misunderstood his words, Dave and I disagree on whether an RSS feed can have both <pubDate> and <dc:date>.  I think it's harmless.  Dave don't think it's cool.