[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Somebody must package djvulibre



On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 11:19:03AM -0500, Christian Hudon wrote:
> le mer 23-01-2002 ? 19:15, elf@florence.buici.com a ?crit :
> > I looked into packaging this at one time and decided that there wasn't
> > a compelling reason to do so.  IIRC, the algorithms that they
> > distribute aren't complete.  It doesn't include a compressor that is
> > on par with the patented code.  Thought I didn't test it, it seemed to
> > be uninteresting except for viewers.  This may be worthwhile if we are
> > (someone is) interesting in supporting images created on MS platforms.
> > 
> 
> Whether the free code's compressor is on par with the proprietary code's
> doesn't seem very relevant to me. The interesting question is whether
> the free code's compressor compresses scanned documents better than
> other free solutions out there. I haven't tried it out (I'd need a
> source for scanned documents first), but I wouldn't be surprised if it
> were the case.

As for sources of scanned documents, I remember that there was a set
of documents used to validate the CCITT and JBIG compressors.  These
ought to be available on the net.  Using them should give a valid
point for comparison.



Reply to: