please feel free to point us to standards that you would like us to
consider.  we are really attempting to make this insanely simple by
literally just having a triple of items to store (namespace, key, value) --
so, we are just really talking about representation, i assume.

On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:09 AM, <zn...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> ----- "Jud" <jvale...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 5:05 pm, James Teters <jtet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Any ideas on size limitations or restrictions for this meta data?
> > good question; I have the same one.
> >
> > simple math based on average tweet status byte size (of status
> > structure coming through the streaming or REST interface) tells us
> > that it wouldn't take much being jammed into the annotation's field
> > to
> > double that size. what status size increase is Twitter's
> > infrastructure ready/willing to tolerate?
> >
> > it seems to me that a few things are NOT candidates for the
> > annotations field(s):
> > - void * (for you old schoolers on the list)
> > - media who's original native format is binary (e.g. photos/videos)
> >
> > annotations will need limitations like:
> > - overall size
> > - if key/value pairs become the model... they'll need individual size
> > limitations (for name and value)
> > - max number of pairs
> > - etc.
> >
> > the whole thing feels driven by the answer to the original "size"
> > question.
> >
> > another question would be whether or not the tweet originator can
> > remove annotations that others put on their tweet? I'd assume that
> > I'd
> > have control over my original tweet in that manner (e.g. "notes"
> > functionality on Flickr)
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe, reply using "remove me" as the subject.
>
> In addition to size constraints, I'd like to *strongly* suggest that
> wherever possible, annotations use *existing* open standards! Please, let's
> not "reinvent the semantic web", even if we can. ;-)
>



-- 
Raffi Krikorian
Twitter Platform Team
http://twitter.com/raffi

Reply via email to