Inconsistent indentation of Notes

[bruce-usab]

In 5.3.1 Required Components of a Conformance Claim, Note 3 has a different indentation than Note 1 and Note 2. Based on how Notes are treated in the previous section, it might be the case that the formatting of Note 1 and Note 2 are the ones needing correction. It might also be the case that all three notes are indented correctly, per the style guide. Regardless, in context of that section, it looks very odd. WCAG 2.1 has the same formatting of this section, and the items flagged below are also applicable to 2.1.

Note 3 for abbreviation in the glossary I think is indented correctly, but it looks odd in context.

The Keyboard Interface definition is the only instance of an Example within a Note. This seems like a mistake as other places in glossary intermix Notes and Examples.

In the glossary, most example boxes have consistent formatting. These do not use the word "example" except for the leading label for the box. It's very nice! A minority of the glossary terms use both the formatting and the label, but then include phrases like "for example" or "examples are". These outliers are a little bit confusing (but only a little bit) and should probably be made consistent with the others.

[patrickhlauke]

In 5.3.1 Required Components of a Conformance Claim, Note 3 has a different indentation than Note 1 and Note 2.

notes 1 and 2 refer directly / come under bullet point 4 specifically. note 3 applies to everything in 5.3.1 itself and are outside of the list. the indentation reflects this.

Note 3 for abbreviation in the glossary I think is indented correctly, but it looks odd in context.

it's indeed correct. note 3 applies to everything under "abbreviation" just like note 1. note 2 only relates to the bullet point 1

The Keyboard Interface definition is the only instance of an Example within a Note. This seems like a mistake as other places in glossary intermix Notes and Examples.

the example is specifically for what's in note 1

in short, these all look correct due to how they're scoped.

[bruce-usab]

the example is specifically for what's in note 1

I will re-re-review, but I thought I found instances where examples were specific to the preceding note, but not embedded within the note.

in short, these all look correct due to how they're scoped.

I can accept that this is the case. Thanks for taking a look!

[mbgower]

I'm inclined to agree with Bruce that there's something a little daffy going on here. However, it's not isolated to the alignment.

I would argue that Note 1 is not a note at all, but part of the definition, as are the numbered items below on initialisms and acronyms.

Note 2 should become Note 1 and be adjusted to read something like "Initialisms are not defined in all languages."

Personally, I find it really problematic when notes are numbered through different hierarchies of document structure. I would also be inclined to remove the numbering in this case and leave each of the remaining note as unnumbered notes in their respective conten.

I'm going to create a PR to show how I think this should be. Note that this will then be a proposed normative change.