proposed rewordings for 4.1 and 3.1 Success criteria

Here are some proposed re-wordings:

Success Criteria for  4.1
  Old:
When the author is  presented with a list of choices, that includes 
choices of formats  or authoring practices that do not support 
content that conforms  to WCAG, these should be *marked* to indicate 
that the choice may  produce content that is inaccessible.

Proposed rewording:
Any choices of formats or *authoring practices* presented to the 
author (e.g., in menus, toolbars or dialogs) that will lead to the 
creation of content that does not comply to WCAG must be marked or 
labeled so that the author is aware of the consequences prior to 
making the choice.

Success Criteria for 3.1

Old:
Various, including:
  TB2: Every time that the *authoring tool* provides to the *author* 
any authoring guidance practice (TB: what is this?  is it clearly 
defined?  examples?) when the author creates/manages *content*, then 
all of that guidance must always direct the *author* in each instance 
to use *accessible authoring practices* (TB: examples?) in the 
creation/management of said content, such that the content is 
*WCAG-conformant* at all times

  JR on call: The authoring tool must never provide instructions (in 
text or graphics) to the author that, if followed, would result in 
Web content that does not *conform to WCAG*.

  JR on call: The authoring tool must never provide instructions (in 
text or graphics) to the author that, if followed, would result in a 
Web content accessibility problem.

Proposed rewording:
Whenever the tool provides instructions to the author, either the 
instructions (if followed) must lead to the creation of Web content 
that conforms to WCAG, or the author must be warned that following 
the instructions would lead to Web content accessibility problems.