As a reader I want to know what conflicts of interest authors have. That way I know how much of what I'm reading is an ad, and how much of it is disinterested opinion. Anyway thanks for the data, I'm not going to tell you how to run your pub, but I have less respect for it now, and I'll take it less seriously.
The Atom project is open to all, so everyone that contributes could be said to be one of its developers.
I note several contributions on the atom-syntax mailing list and even a page on the Wiki for a certain Dave Winer (http://www.intertwingly.net/wiki/pie/DaveWiner). If this is the same person as is posting here, perhaps they'd like to declare an interest too...
As a reader of both the piece and your comment, I'd like to know if you have any criticisms of the piece beyond accusations of bias. Sure, Mark states negative opinions of the MetaWeblog API, but he backs those up with clearly-stated reasons and facts.
All you've said in response is that it's unfair that he doesn't mention that he's an Atom API developer, despite the fact that it's clearly an advocacy piece. Oh, and that he's a ManilaRPC developer, so he obviously knows what he's talking about.
I don't care about political squabbles. I want to know which API I should be developing for, and Mark has made a an informative and convincing case for Atom, based entirely on its technical merits as compared to the other APIs in the field. If you can make arguments against the technical analyses in the piece without dragging politics into them, please do so. Otherwise, I'll assume you have none.
As Chairman and Founder of UserLand Software (publisher of Manila), you should have noted your conflict of interest at the beginning of your comment. To supply a seemingly objective comment without this disclaimer is a pretty glaring omission.
Previous Message
Up
