February 12th, 2010


Clients: Including Twitter-Importer and Other Web Clients in 158 or Somewhere: RFC

http://www.livejournal.com/support/see_request.bml?id=1050315 wound up in Docs, and I was contemplating a "LiveJournal does not offer nor specifically recommend, but you can search for..." and realized that the only reason there isn't a specifically recommended Twitter client (or multiple clients) is that: a) we haven't done it and therefore we don't have one, and b) most of them are web-based rather than downloadable, and therefore c) as they are web-based, we cannot guarantee their reliability to even work as initially described. And of course d) that sort of thing is not universally accepted and is in fact loathed on several fronts, and there's the sense that documenting it would give it a legitimacy that plugging one's ears and going "La la la I can't see you" might deny it.

http://www.livejournal.com/support/faqbrowse.bml?faqid=158 is exclusively about downloadable clients, and the clients page is also exclusively for downloadable clients, so I think it would be possibly simpler to create a new FAQ about online/web-based (what is the preferred term?) clients.

This would include:
- disclaimers about giving one's password to other parties (and indeed, if I recall correctly, my twitter import client uses a hash of my password rather than the password itself)
- the rather more secure use of post-by-email in some web clients and its settings and requirements (not a free account)
- the fact that anything making automated entries can annoy those who read your journal (anti-Twitter-import feeling is strong enough I wouldn't feel right about documenting it without making at least a passing acknowledgment)
- while one can usually be assured that a downloaded client will continue to work unless LJ changes its interface, no matter if the creator disappears in the night, there are no such assurances about a web-based client unless one has a copy of the script and is hosting it one's own self