On Saturday 16 February 2008 19:39:18 Will Coleda via RT wrote: > I'm voting for 3; If someone could just verify my understanding that we > should only be specifying ft=pir when the file extension is not '.pir', I > think we have a dual coda for PIR (identical except for the ft=pir > specification on .t files). > > Feedback?
That makes sense to me. -- c
