Hi Matt,

I mistakenly wrote "since=" above when I meant to write "near=".  The
following url should return tweets with 15 miles of nyc, but instead I
get invalid parameter.

http://search.twitter.com/search.atom?q=&ands=&phrase=&ors=&nots=&tag=&lang=en&from=&to=&ref=&near=nyc&within=15&units=mi&since=&until=&rpp=10

Jonas



On May 27, 4:28 pm, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> wrote:
> Hi Jonas,
>
>      Yes, they are. The since= parameter should not be required, can  
> you share the URL you're getting the error from?
>
> Thanks;
>   – Matt Sanford / @mzsanford
>       Twitter Dev
>
> On May 27, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Jonas wrote:
>
>
>
> > Matt,
>
> > Okay, I'm switching back to search.atom.  However, I still get an
> > "Invalid Parameter" error when since= is not empty.
>
> > Are all the parameters that are available to the search command also
> > available to the search.atom command?
>
> > Jonas
>
> > On May 27, 3:41 pm, Matt Sanford <m...@twitter.com> wrote:
> >> Hi Jonas,
>
> >>      It is not safe to use and will go away at some point. It was
> >> added for questionable reasons and has never been linked to or
> >> documented. Having said that I don't remove it because people have
> >> changed .atom to .rss and started relying on it. Please don't use it
> >> since it has some known bugs and less data than the atom version
> >> (thank you RSS spec for not having a link with a rel attribute).
>
> >> Thanks;
> >>   – Matt Sanford / @mzsanford
> >>       Twitter Dev
>
> >> On May 27, 2009, at 12:32 PM, Jonas wrote:
>
> >>> Hi,
>
> >>> I was using the search.atom command and just happened to try
> >>> search.rss.  I was surprised that this works because I didn't see it
> >>> documented in the api docs.  Is search.rss documented anywhere?  
> >>> Is it
> >>> safe to use?
>
> >>> I noticed two problem with search.rss.
>
> >>> 1) When since= is empty the returned rss always contains a
> >>> twitter:warning element.
>
> >>> 2) When near= is not empty (for instance near=NYC) I always get a  
> >>> 406
> >>> http error.
>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Jonas
>
>

Reply via email to