Well, how is it worse? And what would be better? It's hard to guess what is your issue and address it, but I'll try to further discuss it anyway.
First, for the sake of being accurate and clear, it's "0-0extended" and not "0.0.extended". So, are you suggesting a newer format? I'm guessing not, anyway...
Now, continuing the ealier thinking in response to Fred. I now think the "0.0.1" - as I had suggested - is weird cause I didn't find any library released as such in extended (and it'd be quite unlikely to happen so, right?). The smallest version number you can find is "0.1". So, instead of "0.0.1 or something" I could now suggest just "0.1" (with no "or something" anymore, "0.1" would be the "something").
But then, it's hard to debate cause I don't know where you're to get with your question... I thought that "0-0extended" was just a cheap solution because no one had volunteered to check their actual versions.
At least I hope it's clear why I think "0-0extended" is unfortunate, confusing and unclear, specially in respect to other libraries available - is it the same, newer, older? (I found duplicates, btw). We've had a question about exactly that in a previous thread: "how does the 0-0extended version of iemguts relate to the 0.2.1 available only for windows?". Now there's an answer...
Even if "0-0extended" is the only option there, most of them have versions that would just be good to know, without having someone dig through "meta.pd" or something. And in the case there's no versioning, 0.1 seems like a good place to start, and it would have made it easier fro Fred to work on an update of "tof", for instance.