According to Feico Dillema:
>
>I think maybe the best thing to do, is to completely remove the ss*
>code.

My thoughts were more along the lines of just lightly hacking over the
uk* and calling it ss*.  Leave the old TWAIN code there ifdef'ed out
just in case someone wants it.  I think it is important that if we
have a scsi scanner driver that it be made to work correctly -
according to the principle of least surprise.  This is not the case at
the moment.

> I cannot imagine anybody preferring it over SANE+uk* even
>for the supported scanners.

Neither can I but it cannot hurt to have it there just in case.

> Last time I checked, it looked like
>the ss* code wasn't very elegant and portable

I agree it is neither but I am wary about trashing code that someone
may be relying on.

> (I think it uses
>bitfields).
>

Hehehe - I think the jury was out on that issue still.

-- 
===============================================================================
Brett Lymn, Computer Systems Administrator, British Aerospace Australia
===============================================================================