Really?? The tone and focus of the two statements are entirely different and communicate completely different impressions of the creators relationship to the q

Really?? The tone and focus of the two statements are entirely different and communicate completely different impressions of the creators relationship to the question/criticism. I mean I don't really want to get pedantic here, but... I will anyways, weird mood I suppose: My statement implies an understanding of the value of WARC and an intention to implement the feature, but tempered by a desire to understand the needs of the customer before taking on the task. Their response indicates a lack of understanding of the technology (some of the honesty that I appreciate, fyi) and offers a non-commitment to implementing it, even IF they were able to understand it. I'll admit my impression is also colored by their other responses, not simply this one in isolation. Taking them together, the impression is that while they're willing to take money and start allowing you rely on them for archived data... they aren't going to guarantee they'll be around unless they make enough money to make it worth it for them to even both. Again, honesty I really do appreciate, though I can't agree with the approach. You may say that's what everyone would do, but I disagree, I think great products come from a focus on customer value and a willingness to do the hard-work to provide that value. I believe my statement communicates that far more than theirs.