>> I don't think so. .DEVTAG-EO-H is very low-level (and since of its
>> beta nature, neither .tag nor .taga are documented at all); it's a
>> bad idea IMHO to hardcode any typographical behaviour with it.
>
> I still cannot agree with it, because the modification in question
> is the removal of a side-effect, not the addition of new behaviour.
OK, let's fix this as you suggest.
> Should you agree to patch devtag itself, this wrapper can be turned
> into a wrapper for the .tag request.
Please provide patches, and thanks for your assistance.
Werner
