This fills me with joy and happiness. :-)
But, seriously, I understand that it might be impossible to implement
the in_reply_to_status_id for SMS (guessing would still be appropriate
there, considering the limitations). But, it also appears that the
web interface is not providing in_reply_to_status_id when you reply by
clicking the swoosh. Was this an oversight, or is development still
in the works?
On Aug 18, 6:04 pm, TCI <ticoconid...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me express my gratitude for you guys providing this. It does help
> a lot and if we properly use it we can all have more cohesive and
> followable conversations. Thanks a lot...
> Alex Payne wrote:
> > All,
> > I'm happy to announce a minor change to the API that should have a
> > major impact on the Twitter community. The /statuses/update method
> > now takes an optional parameter: in_reply_to_status_id. As you might
> > guess, this allows API clients to specify which status a status to be
> > posted is in reply to, rather than our system assuming that it's in
> > reply to the last message posted by the user specified by "@username".
> > If your client posts statuses, please consider making use of this
> > feature. By convention, we'd like to continue to use "@username" at
> > the beginning of messages that are replies, but specifying the
> > in_reply_to_status_id parameter will override the guess about the
> > in_reply_to_status_id attribute that our system makes. Yes, this does
> > mean that you could post a message that appears to be a reply to Alice
> > while it's actually a reply to Bob; that's fine, as I'm sure there's a
> > use case for it out there.
> > We hope this addition will allow for more accurate conversations on
> > Twitter. I can't wait to see what you all do with it!
> > --
> > Alex Payne
> >http://twitter.com/al3x- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -