I'm not sure I understand - did you mean: it seems like a pretty cut and dried case for removal (of a feature that is not only not used but even in cases wher

I'm not sure I understand - did you mean: it seems like a pretty cut and dried case for removal (of a feature that is not only not used but even in cases where it might be useful the sites have html versions and don't expect people to click on the xml links) because it will break many government sites? or it seems like a pretty cut and dried case for removal (of a feature that is not only not used but even in cases where it might be useful the sites have html versions and don't expect people to click on the xml links) because the feature is not used etc. etc. ?