On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 09:47:19AM +0200, M.-A. Lemburg wrote: >Last time we discussed this the conclusion was that 1.5.2 >compatibility is needed for 2.3 and we can then move >on to 2.0 compatibility for 2.4. Why 2.0- and not 2.2-compatible? 2.2 is the version the PBF is concentrating on; are 2.0/2.1 of much interest to customers? --amk