On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 08/11/2013 11:54 PM, Gregory Ewing wrote: >> Michael Torrie wrote: >>> I've always wondered if the 160 character limit or whatever it is is a >>> hard limit in their system, or if it's just a variable they could tweak >>> if they felt like it. >> >> Isn't it for compatibility with SMS? Twitter could >> probably change it, but persuading all the cell phone >> networks to change at the same time might be rather >> difficult. > > Yes I think you're correct about it being limited for SMS. > > However I know of no phone or network that won't let you use longer > messages; multiple SMS packets are used and most phone paste them back > together. So no there's nothing that anyone needs to change to use > longer messages if they so chose. It's now just an arbitrary limit, > part of the twitter culture.
It's unlikely to be changed; the limit demands brevity. 160 may be arbitrary now, but without strong argument for another cutoff, there's no reason to alter it. And that's my response, in 160 characters. :) ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
