<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 15 May 2012, at 17:21, Manik Surtani wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On 15 May 2012, at 17:10, Galder Zamarreņo wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">You have not yet given me a single reason why we should put back something that's flawed. All you've said is: i rely on X and I want it back.<br></span></blockquote><br></div><div>Well, the old scheme was broken and there are several good reasons why we moved to a more consistent approach. </div><div><br></div><div>Diego, can't your work be modified to work with the new schemes?</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>+1</div><div><br></div></body></html>