I *do* think that what we have specified
so far could easily be employed by any
1394 device, no matter how small and
simple. But there is much work to be done.
> I have been reviewing the PWG printing profile,and
> also was fortunate to hear a little about the
> discussion that went on in the telephone
> I think the work is becoming productive,and that is good.
> However,I do have one concern about the scope of the profile (spec.)
> It is written in the PWG profile document that the profile
> "will provide requirements for the implementation of IEEE1394
> communications for printers, scanners, digital still cameras,
> and other imageing devices.
> Communications will include traditional computer host to
> these devices AS WELL AS DIRECT PEER TO PEER COMMUNICATION"
> The scope, excluding 1284.4 overlaps with the direct print protocol
> work done in PWG-C.
> Of course it would be an ideal solution if only 1 protocol
> exists in the 1394 printing world, which covers ANY printing
> application, and I assume everyone has persued this idea
> in the beginning.
> However, the reality is that the priority of requirements
> differ among printing applications (PC printing, direct printing)
> and some protocol features which are necessary in 1 solution
> may not be needed in others.
> Coming up with 1 printing profile wich covers both PC printing
> and direct printing may be a difficult task, and may end up as
> an incomplete solution for both printing applications.
> One example may be connection-less service. "IF" it is decided that
> the PC printing solution does not need this feature, I do not feel
> it is necessary to keep it just to support an incomplete direct-print.
> (I'm not saying that PC printing doesn't need connection-less. )
> I think the concensus we had till a while ago ,that
> there would be a "thick" stack and a "thin" stack still lives.
> The idea was that there may(will) be more than 1 stack for printers,
> and FDS is intended to be a solution to "tie" the physical
> functionality, "the printer" whatever the stack may be.
> The current activity, that PWG works on an ideal PC
> printing solution (PWG profile) while the PWG-C works on an
> ideal direct print solution (Direct-print protocol)is a
> very realistic idea.
> The first priority for both groups is for each to come up with
> a good solution for their initial scope,
> and don't become too generic from the beginning.
> >From this point of view, my frank question would be;
> "Should the PWG profile proposal be considered as a
> counter-proposal to the PWG-C Direct-Print Protocol
> I think it is very good work, and hope to participate in it,
> but I was just curious that PWG and PWG-C may be working on
> 2 of the same things.
> FYI: The direct-print market in Japan, though not as big as
> the PC printer market is an area that cannot be ignored,
> with direct print capable printers from Panasonic, Casio,
> Epson,Sharp and most digital camera vendors.
> Direct printing is somewhat a trend in Japan,becoming more
> than a niche market.
> I think this comes from the difference in the number of PCs
> inside the homes, between the US and Japan.
> Atsushi Nakamura
> **************!! NOTICE !!*****************
> *TEL,FAX,and EMAIL(2) has changed *
> *from Sept.8,1997 *
> BJ Technology Develpoment 22,
> Canon Inc.
> 53 Imai Kami-cho
> Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki-shi
> postal no. 211