You wouldn't be able to just 'change' the structure of the source
field to something else without a lot of advance notice as it'd break
applications that use it already, especially with the structure you
suggest there.

Maybe the Twitter API team will consider it for a version 2 endpoint
though.

On Oct 14, 12:28 pm, "D. Smith" <emai...@sharedlog.com> wrote:
> C'mon guys, just admit that you messed up with the source field and
> correct it. It makes no sense to return html string for any value.
> Just return the the object with an app name and url, maybe a unique
> app ID too.
>
> On Oct 12, 8:41 pm, "D. Smith" <emai...@sharedlog.com> wrote:
>
> > I noticed that the value of source field looks somewhat strange:
> > "source":"<a href=\"http://www.echofon.com/\"; rel=\"nofollow\">Echofon<
> > \/a>",
>
> > Why in the world would you have an html string as a value and on top
> > of than why do you include the rel="nofollow" tag?
>
> > This just looks wrong, not structured.
> > The right way whould have been to represent the source as an object
> > with fileds: name, url, like this:
>
> > "source":{"name" : "Echofon", "url":"http://www.echofon.com"},
>
> > Usually you try to pre-parse everying for us, but in the case or
> > source, we have to do extra parsing to extract values of title and url
>
> > Will you fix this soon?
>
>

-- 
Twitter developer documentation and resources: http://dev.twitter.com/doc
API updates via Twitter: http://twitter.com/twitterapi
Issues/Enhancements Tracker: http://code.google.com/p/twitter-api/issues/list
Change your membership to this group: 
http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk

Reply via email to