ok ok ok... sorry ... :)
On 7/6/05, Martin Marinschek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matze, > > you are right - these depencies exist... but it looks as those classes > could wander into the shared class-set, they rather look like general > util classes. > > regards, > > Martin > > On 7/6/05, Jesse Alexander (KBSA 21) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > User-wish: > > > > yes: make tomahawk RI-compatible > > but: keep JavaScript free as an option > > > > thanks > > Alexander > > > -- Matthias Wessendorf
