<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Scribkin - Latest Comments in Short URLs Equals Expanded Browsers?</title><link>http://scribkin.disqus.com/</link><description>where code and culture converge</description><atom:link href="https://scribkin.disqus.com/short_urls_equals_expanded_browsers/latest.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:28:03 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Short URLs Equals Expanded Browsers?</title><link>http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-6996098</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Well, I personally feel that the 140 character limit for URL length is not all that strict.   Those who still wish to shorten their URLS can try &lt;a href="http://Tr.im" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="Tr.im"&gt;Tr.im&lt;/a&gt; - which is a cool and fast application that is easy to use.  &lt;a href="http://Tr.im" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="Tr.im"&gt;Tr.im&lt;/a&gt; is designed to integrate with Twitter.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Directory Submission</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:28:03 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Short URLs Equals Expanded Browsers?</title><link>http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-5856401</link><description>&lt;p&gt;There has to be a limit to everything.   140 characters is fine with me.  Tinyurl helps to shorten the url is great.  It also helps to cover the real url which is of great help to people doing affiliate/referral marketing.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Jas Talents and Models</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:22:50 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Short URLs Equals Expanded Browsers?</title><link>http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-4168125</link><description>&lt;p&gt;So are you saying that Twitter should go *shorter*?  Bold, man.  Bold.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Phil Glockner</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:55:58 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Short URLs Equals Expanded Browsers?</title><link>http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-4162684</link><description>&lt;p&gt;I devoted half of my last tweet to a URL. If 140 characters is a good limit, 70 can be better.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Andy Skelton</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:46:53 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Short URLs Equals Expanded Browsers?</title><link>http://www.scribkin.com/2008/12/03/short-urls-equals-expanded-browsers/#comment-4157891</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Ok yeah, before you say it, my lack of research is plain.. see: &lt;a href="http://lifehacker.com/5048472/longurl-expands-short-urls-so-you-know-where-youre-going" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://lifehacker.com/5048472/longurl-expands-short-urls-so-you-know-where-youre-going"&gt;this LifeHacker article&lt;/a&gt; about some solutions already out there.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But my desire to see additional information harvested at the same time, plus my final thought are still perfectly valid!&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Phil Glockner</dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 20:29:23 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>