Nick Lamb wrote:
>
> > Does anyone really think it would be a good idea to change an existing
> > standard in such a point? I don`t think so.
>
> Chaper, section, subsection reference to the STANDARD please Oliver,
> or do you mean "I don't want to change XSane at this point" ? I do not
> see anything about this mess in the standard, just a clean clear
> description of the various color depths.
>
Hi Nick,
it really looks like it is not described in the standard defined in
sane.[tex,dvi,ps,..]
But this does not change anything here.
There is no reason to discuss it any longer. In this case the standard
is defined by the existing implementations of it: scanimage, xscanimage
and xsane use it the same way as almost all backends do.
And now I do say something I normally would not do, but I hope I can
prevent this discussion list and the programmers here from the
thing that happend last year so I do say it now:
Do you want to mess up the list with a really unnecessary discussion?
Does this get the same discussion style like last year - a la:
"I want to have it in another way - there is no advantage of this way but
I bother all the others until nobody says anything against it" ?
Please Nick: Let us use our time to do constructive work and not to
do senseless discussions. If you want to say: "this is a standard
that I have written" then write your own one but do not disturb the people
who want to spend their time for other, consturctive things.
Bye
Oliver
-- Homepage: http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch sane-umax: http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch/sane/sane-umax.html xsane: http://www.wolfsburg.de/~rauch/sane/sane-xsane.html E-Mail: mailto:Oliver.Rauch@Wolfsburg.DE-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Sep 21 2000 - 23:35:50 PDT