Comments on Working Draft as of April 9

Hey folks,

Just a couple comments on an overall well written document...

Checkpoint 6.4:  I have some concern over the "write access" portion of the 
checkpoint.  For security reasons, we generally need to prevent write access 
to most of our controls, whether it be from an in-process or out of process 
application.  Also, for consistency with checkpoint 6.2, limit the write 
requirement to those controls that may be edited through the user interface.

Checkpoint 9.6:  Can we allow a configurable option that would include 
navigation of disabled elements?  This may be best suited as a comment in the 
Techniques section.  From our experience, we have elements that are disabled 
at one time and then enabled at another time.  For a consistent navigation, 
some users have preferred allowing navigation of disabled elements.  In this 
case, the element would simply indicate that it is currently disabled.  It 
prevents the scenario of elements that seem to disappear.

Checkpoint 6.6:  I understand the need for standard APIs and documented APIs 
for non-standard implementations.  But because of the way some ATs work, 
custom code has had to be written by both AOL and AT developers.  The same is 
true for other software companies.  I believe a priority one for the 
implementation of a user agent should be "make it work".  Priority two should 
be "make it work using standards".  I can go into much greater detail about 
this if it draws a discussion.
 
Scott Totman
Prin Software Eng
America Online