From 35c66248fdb61c13e54fd50b06b93823fdf8f4fe Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Owen Jacobson Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 14:39:28 -0500 Subject: Pointers to GitHub history. --- wiki/cool-urls-can-change.md | 9 +++++---- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) (limited to 'wiki') diff --git a/wiki/cool-urls-can-change.md b/wiki/cool-urls-can-change.md index 2979b42..54795f9 100644 --- a/wiki/cool-urls-can-change.md +++ b/wiki/cool-urls-can-change.md @@ -19,10 +19,11 @@ The web is not, much, like print media. Something published may be amended; you don't even have to publish errata or a correction, since you can correct the original mistake "seamlessly". This has its good and its [bad](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_hole) parts, but with judicious use -and a public history, amendment is more of a win than a loss. However, this -plays havoc with the idea of a "publication" date, even for data that takes -the form of an article: is the publication date the date it was first made -public, the date of its most recent edit, or some other date? +and [a public history](https://github.com/ojacobson/grimoiredotca), amendment +is more of a win than a loss. However, this plays havoc with the idea of a +"publication" date, even for data that takes the form of an article: is the +publication date the date it was first made public, the date of its most +recent edit, or some other date? Because the name - the URL - of an article was set when I first published it, the date in the name had to be its initial publication date. _This has -- cgit v1.2.3