On Sunday 14 May 2006 9:22 am, Pavel Machek wrote: > > There may be a bit of a gap in the process here. "July 2007" is a > > date that's not backed up by anything more than agreement that the > > current approach is a lose. Deprecation is not the same as removal. > > Maybe date will need to be shifted... How about "one year after its replacement is ready"?
