- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2007 18:51:17 +0000
- To: www-style@w3.org
Boris Zbarsky wrote: > > > That first is a huge if. I'll take the date of modification over the > date of printing any day, myself. But I can see situations where the > date of printing is in fact more useful. It captures the fact that on For web URLs as citations, date of viewing (printing) has become a standard part of the citation. > that date a later modification had not yet happened, which the > modification date does not capture. Unfortunately, most authors really do have wants that are better matched to PDF, which was always designed to meet the want for reproducible rendering. Adobe knew where the market was, in that respect, even though they have since been caught out by the web. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 18:51:33 UTC