WebUSB exclusionFilters option in requestDevice()

[beaufortfrancois]

こんにちは TAG-さん!

I'm requesting a TAG review of WebUSB exclusionFilters option in requestDevice() as suggested by Blink API owners.

The "exclusionFilters" option in navigator.usb.requestDevice() allows web developers to exclude some devices from the browser picker. It can be used to exclude devices that match a broader filter but are unsupported.

• Explainer¹ (minimally containing user needs and example code): https://github.com/WICG/webusb/pull/233#issue-1760530134
• Specification URL: https://wicg.github.io/webusb/#dom-usbdevicerequestoptions-exclusionfilters
• Tests: N/A
• User research: N/A
• Security and Privacy self-review²: N/A
• Primary contacts (and their relationship to the specification):
  • Francois Beaufort (@beaufortfrancois), Google.
  • Reilly Grant (@reillyeon), Google.
• Organization(s)/project(s) driving the specification: [organization and/or project name]
• Key pieces of existing multi-stakeholder review or discussion of this specification: N/A
• External status/issue trackers for this specification (publicly visible, e.g. Chrome Status):
  • https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/g/blink-dev/c/e1mgO-m8zvQ
  • https://chromestatus.com/feature/5172269315260416

Further details:

• [x] I have reviewed the TAG's Web Platform Design Principles
• Relevant time constraints or deadlines: None
• The group where the work on this specification is currently being done: WICG
• The group where standardization of this work is intended to be done (if current group is a community group or other incubation venue): N/A
• Major unresolved issues with or opposition to this specification: N/A
• This work is being funded by: Google

You should also know that this issue is an FYI as we value TAG folks's time.

We'd prefer the TAG provide feedback as (please delete all but the desired option):

💬 leave review feedback as a comment in this issue and @-notify @beaufortfrancois

[torgo]

We're happy to close this. WebUSB itself has a lack of multi-stakeholder support and this remains a concern of the TAG. However, putting that to the side, the proposed change is clearly an improvement. For future reference, we would appreciate an explainer – even an abbreviated one – rather than just a link to an issue comment for items like this.