Eric Hansen review of UAAG2 20 Dec 2012 editor's draft

Hi All,
I have reviewed the 20 Dec 2012 editor's draft of UAAG2. It is obvious that a lot of great work has gone into producing that draft. It covers a lot of ground without a lot of excess verbiage.
Following are my key suggestions. Additional suggestions are found in the attached Word doc (using comments, tracked changes, and other edits).
1.      Provide up-front clarification about the degree and kind of flexibility that the claimant has in defining the user agent. Consider clarifying that within a UAAG2 a user agent is defined as software that does all three of retrieve, and render, and facilitate end user interaction with web content. (Or if a user agent need do only a subset of the three, then state that.) However, it is up to the claimant to specify any necessary details about whether specific technologies (e.g., PNG, HTML4) are included or excluded from the user agent that is the subject of the conformance claim. Essentially, the claim must specify the boundaries of the user agent. Furthermore, within a UAAG2 conformance claim, the claimant must further specify the technological context (e.g., operating system[s]) within which the user agent operates. Thus, essentially, a UAAG2 conformance claim pertains to a claimant-defined user agent operating within a specific technological context.

2.      Have clear criteria regarding what constitute unacceptable versus unacceptable rationales for non-applicability of success criteria. Some criteria are mentioned ("success criteria only apply to images, animations, video, audio, etc. that the user agent can recognize"). However, these need to be examined and enumerated in a more systematic way. An important strategic decision for the working group concerns the extent to which these criteria will be part of success criteria versus part of conformance criteria. (A given criterion should not be found both places.)

3.      Add glossary definitions for undefined terms.
4.      Provide links to glossary definitions of terms.
5.      Provide brief definitions of key terms when first used (including providing expansions of acronyms).
6.      Make consistent use of defined terms.
7.      Provide greater consistency in areas such as (a) use of capitalization (I prefer minimal use of caps), (b) glossary entry structure (e.g., have all definitions start with a partial sentence), and (c) policy regarding reuse of definitions from other W3C recommendations (e.g., reuse definitions unless there is a specific need to diverge).
Also there are a few other minor issues that that should be addressed. If something is not clear in my suggestions, please let me know and I will try to clarify.
Thanks!
- Eric