- From: Jeffrey Yasskin via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 16:51:07 +0000
- To: public-web-bluetooth-log@w3.org
The device would be ignored if it doesn't match one of the filters, even if it supports all of the optional services. > It kind of feels like the user lists the services that he/she is requesting permission for, and then also list which ones are hard requirements - but that you want to avoid listing some twice. That's right. It also seems like it'd be weird to say that a service is a hard requirement, but then not ask permission to use it. Having separate lists allows that sort of inconsistency. I don't think the optional services are less of a risk. It's more that if we put optional services in each filter, the gain is that we can tell the user: "foo.com will have access to Innocuous Service if you select Device A, but Dangerous Service if you select Device B." It seems like users will tend to miss services in such a complicated UI, so the gain there seems small. Moving the optional services to be per-filter would also require developers to list them multiple times, so there is a loss, which isn't counteracted by the small gain. We can put the optional services in _both_ places, but we can also do that later, when the need arises. This all definitely deserves an example in the spec. -- GitHub Notif of comment by jyasskin See https://github.com/WebBluetoothCG/web-bluetooth/issues/82#issuecomment-85092273
Received on Monday, 23 March 2015 16:51:20 UTC