Definition formating

[alastc]

Following on from #4122, it is apparent that some definitions have content that was intended as "notes" or "examples" which are not marked as such.

Looking down the glossary, there are a few definitions that are intended to be multi-line (e.g. accessibility-supported, changes of context). However, some multi-line definitions appear to be missing the markings for examples/notes.

In the abbreviation definition note one gets broken up. Looking back at WCAG 2.0 it shouldn't be. I think that's sufficiently confusing that you cannot work out what is normative or not, after the initial definition statement.

The following have content after the initial definition that I think was supposed to be a note or example.

• CSS pixel
• Down event
• up-event
• user inactivity

There are others, but I've removed ones which I thought could affect interpretation.

I think "down event" and "up event" are obviously informative and don't affect the definition.

The CSS pixel one is explanatory, I'm struggling to see how you'd interpret the definition differently if it were (or were not) part of the normative text. Same for user inactivity, if it were intended to be a core part of the definition it would be phrased as "any continuous period of time where no user actions occurs that is tracked by the web site or application."

[bruce-usab]

YIkes, 2.0 abbreviation Note 1 having its own Note 1!

[mbgower]

I've added additional labels to this because I suspect we may be able to get consensus that some of these are obviously unintentionally unformatted notes AND do not alter the meaning or interpretation if properly styled as notes.

As such, they are of a different nature of change than any that are perceived as potentially changing interpretation of the definition. I foresee that we may be splitting this off into two separate PRs. This issue may help us better iterative on our process for changes to the normative document.