On Sat, Dec 06, 2008 at 07:51:25AM -0500, Evan Prodromou wrote: > Why? Because it makes you think through what you're saying?
No because it makes me reformulating what I want to write about five times until it fits into 140 chars. At that point it's often crippled with ugly abbreviations and lost some of the information I wanted to trasport. Because it is designed for SMS it hast the the same problems as short messages have. And they definitely cause big harm to language itself. > I think it's great to have _some_ limit, and so do most mublog > users. I doubt. Most users probably don't even think about if it's bad or great to have that limit. They just accept it as god-given without any chance for change. > Give it some time; it's one of the things many microbloggers like > about the medium. The longer I use it the more I hate it. Unfortunately http://sms.is-not-s.ms/ doesn't make that much sense. (But I created it on request anyway. http://e-mail.is-not-s.ms/ was the initial site. :-) > >Is there any special reason why this has not been implemented. > When it comes up on identi.ca, users hate the idea. I didn't notice that yet. > That said, I think it's a good idea to have it be a configurable value. Full Ack. > If a server receives a message longer than its own limit it could > truncate, or just store the value. In nearly every case you should be able to see the whole notice on the originating site. So a (visible) flag on the remote site indicating that the notice has been truncated would be fine. Regards, Axel -- Axel Beckert - [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://noone.org/abe/ _______________________________________________ Laconica-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mail.laconi.ca/mailman/listinfo/laconica-dev
