# SANE V2

Nick Lamb (njl98r@ecs.soton.ac.uk)
Tue, 24 Aug 1999 19:55:58 +0100 (GMT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- Next message: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"
- Previous message: abel deuring: "Re: SG_BIG_BUFF, glibc 2.1 weirdness ..."
- Next in thread: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Reply: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"
- Reply: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"
- Reply: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"

I've been writing up a proposed SANE 1.2 draft document, based on sane.tex
from the SANE 1.0.1 distribution.

However, when it came to adding JBIG (which someone mentioned wanting) I
noticed that JBIG uses the exact same arithmetic coding stuff which was
patented by IBM and thus lies unused in the JPEG standards.

At the moment I have explicitly mentioned the patented process as a no-no
in the JPEG frame type, which makes sense because hardly anything can
read JPEG streams with arithmetic encoding anyway. For JBIG we don't have
that option because the patented Q-coder is in the baseline standard.

So: A question for those writing drivers for high-speed document scanning

Should we include a JBIG frame type anyway? If we do it will be the first
format for which SANE cannot include a reference implementation. The
advantage in supporting it anyway would be that you could potentially
save the JBIG image (if an interchange format exists) and import it into
your proprietary document management system. The disadvantage is that
this sets an unpleasant precedent.

Nick.

    --
    Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
    To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com

- Next message: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"
- Previous message: abel deuring: "Re: SG_BIG_BUFF, glibc 2.1 weirdness ..."
- Next in thread: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"
- Maybe reply: Tom Martone: "Re: SANE V2"
- Reply: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"
- Reply: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"
- Reply: Oliver Rauch: "Re: SANE V2"