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
document:
"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.
"Should the PWG profile proposal be considered as a
counter-proposal to the PWG-C Direct-Print Protocol
proposal?"
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
tel:+81-3-44-733-6111(ext.5593)
+81-3-44-739-6634(direct)
fax:+81-3-44-739-6756
email(1):Atsushi_Nakamura@cbj.canon.co.jp
email(2):atsnaka@bsd.canon.co.jp
-----------------------------------------