format of ERT

Bullet items in the  "Evaluation Section" aren't always presented the same 
way.  I found it make it hard to read.  For example,

under 1.1.9 it says "AREA elements must have a valid ALT attribute."  This 
is a condition that must be satisfied.

whereas 1.2.1 says 'If an IMG element has a valid "ismap" attribute and 
does not have a valid "usemap"
               attribute, prompt the user for associated text links."

    This is a condition plus what to do (viz. prompt user).

1.4.a says  "Any multimedia object will generate a user notification"

This says what to do but in passive tense.

5.1.2 says "A TABLE element will trigger this evaluation."

This is yet another wording.

We need to have one consistent way to present things.  I suggest changing 
"Evaluation" to "Triggered by" so these become
Triggered by
      AREA elements without valid ALT attibute, where validity is tested by...
      IMG elements  with valid "ismap" attibute but no valid "usemap" attibute"
      Any multimedia object
      Any table element

The introduction would of course have to be modified to reflect this.

Also, I'd suggest omitting the "discussion" section and label any status 
remarks like "needs discussion" with the @@  convention Wendy is using.

Len


-------
Leonard R. Kasday, Ph.D.
Institute on Disabilities/UAP, and
Department of Electrical Engineering
Temple University
423 Ritter Annex, Philadelphia, PA 19122

kasday@acm.org
http://astro.temple.edu/~kasday

(215) 204-2247 (voice)
(800) 750-7428 (TTY)