Minor editorial cleanup to rough-interop clause

Author: fantasai

css-2015/Overview.bs

@@ -419,30 +419,30 @@ Requirements for Responsible Implementation of CSS</h2>
 			as a pre-CR spec that hasn't changed in awhile is usually more out-of-date than stable.
 
 		<li>
-			If at least three browsers implement a feature
-			(or if a browser has broken the previous rule and shipped an <a>unstable</a>
-			or otherwise non-standard feature in a production release),
+			If at least three UAs implement a feature
+			(or if a browser has broken the previous rule and shipped for broad use
+			an <a>unstable</a> or otherwise non-standard feature in a production release),
 			and the implementations have rough interoperability,
 			<em>and</em> the CSS Working Group has recorded consensus that this feature should exist and be released,
 			implementers may ship that feature unprefixed in release builds.
 			<dfn>Rough interoperability</dfn> is satisfied by a subjective judgment
 			that even though there may be differences,
 			the implementations are sufficiently similar
 			to be used in production websites for a substantial number of use cases.
-			Vendors <em>should</em> provide spec-editing and testing resources to complete standardization of such features.
 
 			<details class=why>
 				<summary>Why?</summary>
-				If a feature has already escaped into the wild and sites have started depending on it,
+				If a feature is sufficiently popular that three or more browsers have implemented it before it's finished standardization,
+				this clause allows releasing the pressure to ship.
+				Also, if a feature has already escaped into the wild and sites have started depending on it,
 				pretending it's still "experimental" doesn't help anyone.
 				Allowing others to ship unprefixed recognizes that the feature is now de facto standardized
 				and encourages authors to write cross-platform code.
 
-				If a feature is sufficiently popular that three or more browsers have implemented it before it's finished standardization,
-				this clause allows releasing the pressure to ship.
-				Note, though, that the CSSWG must still be consulted to ensure coordination across vendors
+				<p>Note, though, that the CSSWG must still be consulted to ensure coordination across vendors
 				and to ensure sanity review by the CSS experts from each vendor.
-				Note also that "rough interoperability" still usually means painful lack of interop in edge (or not-so-edge) cases,
+				Note also that <a>rough interoperability</a> still usually means
+				painful lack of interop in edge (or not-so-edge) cases,
 				particularly because details have not been ironed out through the standards review process.
 			</details>
 
@@ -460,6 +460,9 @@ Requirements for Responsible Implementation of CSS</h2>
 				as they get ironed out through the standards/bugfixing process.
 			</details>
 
+			Vendors <em>should</em> provide spec-editing and testing resources
+			to complete standardization of such features.
+
 		<li>
 			When shipping in a production build a feature that is only meant to be used in non-Web environment,
 			it should be supported only through a prefixed syntax