> O.K. - if it really really really pleases all people here, we can add that
> types. But as said, I am afraid of opening a neverending growth of the
> frame types, which is very bad regarding compatibility and cannot be easily
> extended by just editing a textfile or something.
Hi Andy,
you say it in one sentence what is going on here.
We must keep the sane standard simple and short, that is the
great advantage of the sane standard.
I tried to read all mails about SANE V2. While I read some of then I
asked myself if I will continue writing a frontend for sane.
Hey: does anyone know what you suggested?
Do you really want to get a sane standard with 1000 pages?
We will not have an "EASY" Scanner access in the FUTURE
if we make such a complex and overloaded standard.
Hey everyone, let us find a standard with sense. It does not make
sense if everyone wants to have something in the standard where
he can say: that is what I added to the sane standard.
After all everyone set an monument in the sane standard,
but it gets unusable.
Bye
Oliver
-- EMAIL: Oliver.Rauch@Wolfsburg.DE WWW: http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com