Hi all,
One thing to keep in mind when thinking about any meta-data
fields is that they are invisible via SMS. Some features that's ok for
(like the exact status it was a reply to) but the text of the message
itself should have enough context to be clear to the recipient. "@user
yes, I'll marry you" would make sense on SMS, just "yes, I'll marry
you" could be awkward :)
Thanks;
— Matt Sanford
On Mar 31, 2009, at 07:03 AM, Peter Maurer wrote:
The in_reply_to_status_id will be honored only if the value is a
status_id
that was authored by a user that is also mentioned in the tweet.
Given the fact that we do have "in_reply_to_status_id" as a separate
meta data field to indicate a reply, I wonder why you guys require the
tweet to include the recipient's screen name. After all, tweets _are_
limited in length. I'm sure you thought long and hard about this, and
I'd be interested in some background information, if you don't mind,
Doug. Did you choose this path for user experience reasons only, or is
there also a technical reason?
All in all, I really like the new "Mentions", but I do wonder if a
separate "Replies" twitter.com section/API call, which doesn't require
mentioning of the recipient, would be worthwhile. That way, we'd have
even more data to play with. :)
Peter.
