ManilaRPC
2003-10-16 09:38:14 Kendall Clark
For the record, the first thing XML.com published about Atom, before it was called Atom, was a (very opinionated) column I did in which I criticized some aspects of Atom. XML.com has not given the Atom effort a free pass by any stretch. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply wrong.
>Since his story hinges on everything having >started with Live Journal this omission is pretty >glaring.
No, not really. The piece doesn't in any way "hinge" on starting with Live Journal. That's where Pilgrim started, but so what? The current Userland contributions to this area were well and fairly reviewed in the piece. I suspect that the criticisms Pilgrim offered of all the things which preceded Atom were points that have been discussed in various communities endlessly. The column very nicely summarizes these issues in one place, but that's hardly the meat of the column.
>Also Mark knows about it, he did Python interface >for ManilaRPC.
Right, which suggests that he may probably had a good reason to leave it out, focusing on the Metaweblog API instead. There are any number of good reasons why it's a sensible thing to leave out.
It seems to me that in order to sustain this claim -- which is itself quite unfriendly and hostile -- of bias, it has to be shown that there are only biased reasons for not discussing Manila RPC, and, further, that Pilgrim was motivated by these biased reasons. That's an awfully big burden. I'm not going to hold my breath.
>The rest of the article is as biased as one would >expect from a designer of the Atom API.
Actually, Pilgrim has implemented this API and been mostly involved with the Atom serialization format -- well, if his own reportage of his involvement is to be trusted, and I don't see any reason that it shouldn't be.
>As usual O'Reilly allows people to write >supposedly objective articles without disclaiming >conflicts of interest.
But that's what you are for, Dave! You are always "disclaiming our conflicts of interest" for us. :>
I should state my own so-called "conflicts of interest": O'Reilly pays me, together with Edd Dumbill, to find and publish technically interesting content. I asked Mark Pilgrim to be an XML.com columnist, and I've edited all of his XML.com columns, including this one. I can't see any mistatements of fact or analysis in it, or I would have corrected them.
But, wait, it gets worse! Mark and I have literally conspired together to publish critical analyses of XML-related things, including the Atom stuff. Just last night at dinner we deepened our conspiracy: I asked Mark if he'd be interested in working on some new areas in his future columns, and together we conspired to bring a new columnist to XML.com, about which more in coming weeks.
So, you see, there is a conspiracy, the goal of which is to publish interesting material, based on objective analysis of technical merit, at XML.com.
If that is the charge, we are *totally* guilty.
Previous Message
