I'm thinking more and more about why the 280-character limit is implemented differently client- and server-side. Why would you do that?
Show this thread
What possible benefit could there be to having two different implementations of the 280-character limit?
-
-
It has many drawbacks. It means a client has to accept and correctly display Tweets which it nominally shouldn't be able to produce.
Show this thread -
If the server-side implementation later falls into line with the client-side one, that leaves us with numerous extant "impossible Tweets".
Show this thread -
They must have known that leftover impossible Tweets would be a problem here. So why do it? Do they never plan to close that gap?
Show this thread -
The only way in practice to close the gap is to weaken the client-side check to "280 characters, any characters you like".
Show this thread -
[pins all the data up on the board, crosslinks it all with thread and highlights, steps back dramatically and it all spells "INCOMPETENCE"]
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I assume the client-side implementation is more computationally expensive, and someone made a call to simplify the server-side one.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.