<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shortening is for Baking</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.wilsonet.com/archives/2009/04/08/shortening-is-for-baking/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.wilsonet.com/archives/2009/04/08/shortening-is-for-baking/</link>
	<description>Interaction and interface design, technology, politics, music, and random thoughts...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:22:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Markus Amalthea Magnuson</title>
		<link>http://blog.wilsonet.com/archives/2009/04/08/shortening-is-for-baking/comment-page-1/#comment-37492</link>
		<dc:creator>Markus Amalthea Magnuson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wilsonet.com/?p=675#comment-37492</guid>
		<description>The reason why mobile service operators won&#039;t ever lift the slim character limit on an SMS is that it would cost them money, as opposed to the current situation where the text messages are sent along with network status handshake packets that are continuously sent anyway. This is where the limit of 160 characters comes from, to fit in the rather small control packets, and this is also why SMS is a zero cost for the operators.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The reason why mobile service operators won&#8217;t ever lift the slim character limit on an SMS is that it would cost them money, as opposed to the current situation where the text messages are sent along with network status handshake packets that are continuously sent anyway. This is where the limit of 160 characters comes from, to fit in the rather small control packets, and this is also why SMS is a zero cost for the operators.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daniel J. Wilson</title>
		<link>http://blog.wilsonet.com/archives/2009/04/08/shortening-is-for-baking/comment-page-1/#comment-37491</link>
		<dc:creator>Daniel J. Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 20:44:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wilsonet.com/?p=675#comment-37491</guid>
		<description>Fair point. My operating assumption is that people have set up their CMS such that it doesn&#039;t spew mile-long URLs full of cryptic characters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fair point. My operating assumption is that people have set up their CMS such that it doesn&#8217;t spew mile-long URLs full of cryptic characters.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: akatsuki</title>
		<link>http://blog.wilsonet.com/archives/2009/04/08/shortening-is-for-baking/comment-page-1/#comment-37490</link>
		<dc:creator>akatsuki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2009 18:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.wilsonet.com/?p=675#comment-37490</guid>
		<description>I think the lack of smart semantic URLs is another reason for shortening services. When links hit three or more lines, frankly shortening for use inline is just people trying to keep the focus on their message and not on an out-of-control link.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the lack of smart semantic URLs is another reason for shortening services. When links hit three or more lines, frankly shortening for use inline is just people trying to keep the focus on their message and not on an out-of-control link.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

