I've been following the thread, but this seems like an appropriate place to jump in.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 5:34 AM, Henry H <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > For late joiners THREAD SUMMARY > > We need a way to identify people across a federated microblogging / > messaging platform (e.g across Twitter, Identica, etc.) > This assumes that we already have a method for identifying people across networks (e.g., using email / jid semantics). To rephrase the goal, we need a way to *reply* to people across federated networks. I'll argue that until we have said federated networks, this is a moot point (c.f., the @reply convention in twitter was, as Lachlan said, only codified once people using the service had actually used @replies. Alternative forms that were (possibly still are) accepted by twitter are "name: " and "r name "). My claim is that emergent behaviour should be observed and codified once a federated system exists, not before. @name convention is too limiting - only works in a single platform / > truncates messages in SMS > Why not use aliases? They are user friendly and assignable by the user > Aliases doesn't take care of new people trying to send you messages > @name convention is not the limitation, SMS protocol is (140 characters) > Well what about tracking people across a federated environment? Can't do > that with aliases! > <insert tangential conversations about using icons + attempt to bring > conversation back to original question> > I will point out that we should build the basics, and then expand upon ideas once we have groundwork to expand upon. All of this is pure speculation. SMS number could be used but painful for users to memorize; also given > expense of assigning SMS number for every userID - not viable > Note that users are never referred to by their phone numbers in Twitter. I don't even know the phone numbers of my closest friends and co-workers any more (my phone and twitter does, though). No - the real problem is being able to do replies to the correct thread. > It would be nice to have the something user friendly > [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a good way to identify people > Agreed. @[EMAIL PROTECTED] is ugly > Agreed. @name convention doesn't belong to Twitter, but they started using it so > we're stuck with it (are we?) > No, we're not. Usage of @name is very limited compared to total usage. @name could have been implemented with a simple "reply" button (and I think this is actually done now, albeit by cheating and using javascript to fill in @name at the beginning of an update). > SMS limit is 160 characters in Latin > SMS messages can actually be up to 800 characters and broken across 5 > messages > SMS limit is 140 for all practical purposes unless everyone wants to speak > in latin > Some clarification on this. SMS messages are limited to 140 bytes. The ETSI GSM 03.38 character set specifies a 7-bit partial latin encoding (160 characters), with an "extended bit" to get some additional characters (potentially limiting the message to 140 characters when using GSM 03.38). It's also possible to send SMS messages using the UCS-2 encoding (UTF-16), which allows for 67 characters per message. However, it's also possible to concatenate messages using the User Data Header, which allows for potentially unlimited length messages, but phone / carrier support for concatenated messages is spotty. There's a good write-up on this topic here: http://blog.nowsms.com/2007/06/long-sms-text-messages-and-160.html FWIW, twitter's decision to do 140 characters was based on: 18 characters for username (now 15) + 1 character for the ":" + 1 character for the space " " + 140 characters for the update = 160 characters. There is an SMS gateway that can assign an SMS per JID - not a technology > limitation > Probably easier would be JID to SMS --- any Jabber server can do it, and generally you only need to do SMS to email for an individual's purposes. b.
