Yes, that's safe to use. If it changes, we'll let people know. And yes, we'll move to a saner URL naming scheme w/r/t profile images.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 23:15, Dave Briccetti <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi. I’ve searched around for 1/2 hour or so, and haven’t found an > authoritative explanation of the sizes of pictures, and how to > retrieve them. > > It seems that profile_image_url leads to a tiny picture: > http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/66123958/IMG_0534_twitter500_normal.jpg > > But there is also a slighter bigger version: > http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/66123958/IMG_0534_twitter500_bigger.jpg > > And then a proper full-size one: > http://s3.amazonaws.com/twitter_production/profile_images/66123958/IMG_0534_twitter500.jpg > > Am I correct in this? That the big version URL can be derived from > that in profile_image_url by dropping the _normal from the name? Is > this part of the API spec? Safe to use? > > Thanks. > -- Alex Payne - API Lead, Twitter, Inc. http://twitter.com/al3x
