I'm not disputing the influence of jacquard machines in general, but there is big difference between "having influence on computing" and "is a computer".
It's an interesting question, where the boundaries of an innovation lie. If we take Jacquard's loom as an 'ordinateur' or information ordering machine, its 'computing' properties become more recognisable -- composite outputs and patterns derived from stringing together smaller bits (and strings) of information.
