Fix remaining "Proposal-Style" language

[John C Klensin]

--On Thursday, 20 November, 2008 13:11 -0800 Mark Davis
<mark at macchiato.com> wrote:

> The language needs to be fixed in a number of places.
> For example, in Rationale:
> 
> Independently
> of the characters chosen (see next subsection), the theory is
> to divide the characters that appear in Unicode into three
> categories:
> 
> =>
> 
> Independently of the characters chosen (see next subsection),
> the approach is to divide the characters that appear in
> Unicode into three categories:
> 
> *Rationale. *This is not a "theory".

I find it very encouraging that we are getting down to this
level of quibbling.  Given that this document is headed for
Informational status, I think it indicates that we are done.

> In general, the documents need to be reviewed to change
> language that was appropriate for a proposal ("would be",
> "theory", "are expected to be", "IDNA procedures themselves
> should neither", "prefix change would clearly be", "IDNA2008
> should prohibit") and change that language to what is suitable
> for a specification or current description ("is" "approach",
> "are", "IDNA procedures themselves neither", "prefix change
> would clearly have been", "IDNA2008 prohibits"). A lot of this
> has been done, but there are a large number of loose ends.

See above.

> There are also some remaining MUSTs or SHOULDs in Rationale.
> These may have been caught by now in the editors copy.

Based on searching for those terms, I believe that they have
been.

    john