[css-2015] Cross-link prefix terms

Author: fantasai

css-2015/Overview.bs

@@ -434,13 +434,14 @@ Proprietary and Non-standardized Features</h4>
 
 	Issue: Rewritten as open vs. closed systems instead of Web vs. non-Web, per szilles' request.
 
-	To avoid clashes with future CSS features, the CSS2.1 specification
-	reserves a <a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords">prefixed
-	syntax</a> for proprietary and experimental extensions to CSS.
+	To avoid clashes with future CSS features,
+	the CSS2.1 specification reserves a
+	<dfn lt="vendor prefix | vendor-prefixed | prefixed | unprefixed"><a href="http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#vendor-keywords">prefixed syntax</a></dfn>
+	for proprietary and experimental extensions to CSS.
 	A CSS feature is a <dfn>proprietary extension</dfn> if it is meant for use
 	in a closed environment accessible only to a single vendor's user agent(s).
 	A UA should support such <a>proprietary extensions</a>
-	only through a vendor-prefixed syntax
+	only through a vendor-<a>prefixed</a> syntax
 	and not expose them to open (multi-UA) environments such as the World Wide Web.
 
 	<details class=why>
@@ -480,7 +481,7 @@ Market Pressure and De Facto Standards</h4>
 	*	<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 broad-release builds.
+	implementers may ship that feature <a>unprefixed</a> in broad-release builds.
 	<dfn>Rough interoperability</dfn> is satisfied by a subjective judgment
 	that even though there may be differences,
 	the implementations are sufficiently similar
@@ -503,15 +504,15 @@ Market Pressure and De Facto Standards</h4>
 	</details>
 
 	<p>When exposing such an <a>unstable</a> feature to the Web in a production release,
-	implementations should support both prefixed and unprefixed syntaxes
+	implementations should support both <a>vendor-prefixed</a> and unprefixed syntaxes
 	for the feature.
 	Once the feature has stabilized and the implementation is updated to match interoperable behavior,
-	support for the prefixed syntax should be removed.
+	support for the <a>vendor-prefixed</a> syntax should be removed.
 
 	Note: Anyone promoting <a>unstable</a> features to authors
 	is urged to describe them
 	through their standard unprefixed syntax,
-	and to avoid encouraging the use of the prefixed syntax
+	and to avoid encouraging the use of the <a>vendor-prefixed</a> syntax
 	for any purpose other than working around implementation differences.
 
 	<details class=why>