should land patterns match the typical or the maximum part footprint dimension?
Land pattern recommendations are in the realm of established best practice, rather than definitive proofs. The "same size" recommendation for QFN pads is indeed considered best practice. I'm not sure why, but suspect it has to do with providing a precise locating effect as the solder melts.

So the answer to which to use, typical (nominal) or maximum, is - what does the manufacturer/fab/IPC recommend? At the end of the day it's going to be a tradeoff between thermal performance, locating effect, likelihood of shorts between pads, etc. At 0.1mm, it's not going to be a big effect either way, particularly given board fab tolerances.

I would follow the advice from Freescale Semiconductor in their Application Note AN1902:


  The PCB pad width should be approximately the same as the nominal package pad width


That's going to maximise the locating effect and minimise the potential of a short, with a negligible reduction in conductivity/thermal transfer.