We do intend to move to unified format. This inconsistency is the result of
the Search system being developed independently of Twitter before it was
acquired.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 13:33, Jonas wrote:
>
> I am using search.json and track.json and I noticed that the date
> format for created_at
Done.
http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/detail?id=740&colspec=ID%20Stars%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Owner%20Summary%20Opened%20Modified%20Component
Cheers,
--
Yusuke Yamamoto
yus...@mac.com
this email is: [x] bloggable/twittable [ ] ask first [ ] private
follow me on : http://twitte
I'm seeing that, too. Can you open a ticket?
http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list
Thanks,
Doug
--
Do you follow me? http://twitter.com/dougw
2009/6/23 H12山本 裕介
>
> Hi,
>
> After the change, the API started to return status code:403 when there
> is no matching tweets.
> It used
Hi,
After the change, the API started to return status code:403 when there
is no matching tweets.
It used to be returning status code 404.
Will this be a permanent behavior?
---
[Wed Jun 24 12:50:31 JST 2009]GET
http://search.twitter.com/search.json?q=from%3Atwit4j+doesnothit
[Wed Jun 24
Yep, looking good.
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Brooks Bennett wrote:
>
> Looks fixed now. Thanks!
>
> On Jun 23, 9:24 pm, Matt Sanford wrote:
>> This was not intentional and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it now.
>>
>> — Matt
>>
>> On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Chad Etzel wrote:
>>
>>
>
Looks fixed now. Thanks!
On Jun 23, 9:24 pm, Matt Sanford wrote:
> This was not intentional and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it now.
>
> — Matt
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Chad Etzel wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yeah, all of my timestamps are now busted and I'm just finding out...
> > It look
Thanks for looking into this.
On Jun 23, 9:24 pm, Matt Sanford wrote:
> This was not intentional and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it now.
>
> — Matt
>
> On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Chad Etzel wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Yeah, all of my timestamps are now busted and I'm just finding out...
> > It
It seems all the server don't return the same date format ... probably
because of the cached results...
What is the recommended action ? is this new format going to be the
good one from now on?
Should we fix it ?
Stephane
On Jun 23, 6:02 pm, Christopher Finke wrote:
> Around 7:45pm Central ti
yes, I found this as well.
-Jeff
On Jun 23, 6:02 pm, Christopher Finke wrote:
> Around 7:45pm Central time, I noticed that the format of the
> created_at timestamp changed from "Fri, 15 May 2009 14:41:50 +" to
> "2009-05-15 14:41:50 UTC". Was this change intentional? If so, was
> it commu
Update: We just deployed a fix for this bug. the format should be back
to normal.
Thanks;
— Matt Sanford / @mzsanford
On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:24 PM, Matt Sanford wrote:
This was not intentional and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it
now.
Matt
On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Chad Etze
This was not intentional and I'm trying to get to the bottom of it now.
— Matt
On Jun 23, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Chad Etzel wrote:
Yeah, all of my timestamps are now busted and I'm just finding out...
It looks like this was just a change in the Search API format, and not
the REST API format? Is t
Yeah, all of my timestamps are now busted and I'm just finding out...
It looks like this was just a change in the Search API format, and not
the REST API format? Is that correct?
Going bonkers,
-Chad
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 9:02 PM, Christopher Finke wrote:
>
> Around 7:45pm Central time, I n
12 matches
Mail list logo
