On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 12:33 PM Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 2018-06-20 at 12:23 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Well considering I've still got a terminal window open, I could > > change the link contents instantly to anything before most people > > will have seen it. Definitely not out of my TDOC if the content of > > those links is the only evidence. > > > > I suppose (now that those links are tied to a github repo) one could > > cross-reference my message timing to commit timing. > Semi-serious suggestion: make the Github repository a public forum. > > For what it's worth, I've opened the FLR in question so you couldn't > now change it and have me see the new version (and the use of Github as > an intermediary, who keep backups of old versions, means that your TDOC > is ill-defined here but probably doesn't contain the repository). That > said, I thought the whole TDOC precedent got discredited anyway at some > point? It did, sort of. It's not the time when it leaves the sender's TDOC (as suggested by CFJ 1314), it's more like the time when it enters the receiver's TDOC (CFJs 1905 and 866). For all of the players are staring confusedly at us right now, TDOC means technical domain of control, and originates in CFJ 866. I'm having trouble believing that it's universally impossible to publish a report by reference. -Aris > >
