ACT Framework 1.0 public comment

Please find my comments attached. Many of them are editorial but several 
are substantive. Here is a summary of the high-level issues:

- In several sections it is unclear what the specific requirements are 
to conform with this specification. The tone is often conversational 
rather than direct and instructional. Clearer definition using the MUST, 
SHOULD, MAY keywords would help specify the requirements more directly.

- There are no requirements on the actual format for providing the rules 
and test cases. For example, do I have to list all the atomic rules of a 
composed rule in one section? Does that section have to have a heading 
identifying it as such? Does this have to be in an accessible document 
format? I think a minimal set of requirements would be important.

- Some terms, like "test subject" do not have a clear definition.

- Some sections would be much clearer with examples.

- Sometimes keywords are used, but not meant as requirements definition. 
For example, using the word "may" meaning "might" in a sentence. This is 
inconsistent with their definition in the "conformance section".


Regards,
   Shadi

-- 
Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/
Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist
Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)