- From: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:11:59 +0000
- To: <richt@opera.com>
- CC: <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, <giuseppep@opera.com>, <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com>, <Cathy.Chan@nokia.com>, <Youenn.Fablet@crf.canon.fr>, <public-device-apis@w3.org>
comments inline regards, Frederick Frederick Hirsch Nokia On Oct 15, 2013, at 12:46 PM, ext Rich Tibbett wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 7:02 AM, Igarashi, Tatsuya >> <Tatsuya.Igarashi@jp.sony.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Giuseppe, >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 1:41 AM, Giuseppe Pascale <giuseppep@opera.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> I don't think this is the case, as how permission is asked is not mandated >>>> by the spec and the UA may request only once per device, regardless of the >>>> number of service searches you do (maybe by showing which services will be >>>> exposed) >>>> >>> >>> In the case that a web application specifies multiple types to the >>> getNetworkService method, do you mean how many dialogs pop-up is >>> implementation dependent ? >>> >>> >>> >>> promise = window . navigator . getNetworkServices ( type ) >>> >>> Immediately returns a new Promise object and then the user is prompted to >>> select discovered network services that have advertised support for the >>> requested service type(s). >>> >>> In my understanding that UA must prompt per getNetworkServices method. And >>> I assumed the case that a web application searches UPnP Service B after >>> searching UPnP Service A which is founded in the Device Description of UPnP >>> Device X. This case causes two popup dialogs by the two getNetworkServices() >>> methods. I do not think that all web application must know what UPnP >>> services are supported by UPnP device in advance of getting UPnP device >>> description. >>> > > While this type of API usage is technically possible it would be a > less than ideal pattern for web developers to use. > > Why? When we share a service with a web page that has not demonstrated > any prior awareness or interest in that service's corresponding type > then there is a good possibility that the web page does not know or > does not need to know how to interact with it if/when it received a > service object of that type. > > Calling getNetworkServices twice as you propose above - initially to > determine the services running on a device and then calling it again > with a list of all service types discovered from the first call - > introduces this exact problem. The argument is "I don't know exactly > what services I want or will receive but I just want them all for the > sake of having them all". This does not fulfil the key requirements of > this API: being able to interact with all services returned to a web > page. > This also goes against the privacy principle of minimization - the web page should not inventory all the services but only access what it needs by asking for what it needs. > Perhaps we could discuss a specific use case or scenario where a > pattern of calling getNetworkServices twice as above would be more > useful than calling getNetworkServices once against a list of service > types that are well-known to the requesting web page and thus are > presumably handleable by that web page should they be returned from > that call? > >>> >>> >>> BTW, the about description “the user is promoted to select discovered >>> network services…” would not be correct. I think it should be “the user is >>> prompted to allow providing network service information discovered on local >>> network”, because UA does not support service selection. >>> >>> >> >> My understanding was that this is not required but I agree this text seems >> to suggest otherwise. Rich? >> > > I can try to clean up this sentence. Of course it is worth pointing > out here that most of the UI/UX is quite deliberately left out of the > scope of this spec. > > I would suggest both of the interpretations of user prompting made > above could be potentially valid but such UX decisions fall to > implementers. We shouldn't need to say much more than this in this > specification. > > - Rich >
Received on Thursday, 17 October 2013 15:16:50 UTC