On 4 Aug 2012, at 9:04 AM, Rob_McC <mrmccorm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for insight... > > Q: Where did you see © preferred? > >Ref: http://www.copyrightauthority.com/copyright-symbol/ > "However,... always use the number code instead of the symbol code.... > ©" > (after examining the site, maybe not an authority? :)
I think that site is pretty good, but that specific advice is perhaps a little stale. My rationale for sticking with © is just for readability—and that's not a terribly strong argument, since it's fairly clear from context what © must be... > Comment: > >Finally, there's a legal argument for leaving it alone. The © date is the > >date of first publication, not necessarily the date of the last edit. > . I know what you mean. I remember Micro$oft using a range of dates on > software (c) Microsoft 1996-2003 > but, as I mentioned, notice is optional (at least in Can and USA) - and one > would have to proof the date of creation if challenged. > > >I question whether it's worth adding this overhead to every request > . I think I'll just hard code it, as I hope to have a very busy site someday. > --
