Dan Connolly wrote: > Hmm... I guess that's OK by me. > > I wonder if renaming loopx.xsl is more or less costly. > > It's referenced by loopx.xml, which is presumably copied in a number of places. The redirect is probably the cheaper option JeremyReceived on Thursday, 20 September 2007 15:35:15 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:11:50 GMT