PEP 685: Conform to PEP 12, address textual errors and improve clarity and phrasing

[CAM-Gerlach]

I corrected a handful of technical, syntax and PEP 12-conformance issues, including with links, mistakenly-retained template text, reST syntax and code block formatting. Furthermore, I proofread for a few apparent typos, spelling mistakes, missing punctuation and grammar errors. Finally, I copyedited it to use clearer phrasing, appropriate diction, avoid distracting repetition, and add a few small clarifications.

Also, should @pfmoore be added as PEP-Delegate, given his standing delegation for packaging metadata and related PEPs?

[CAM-Gerlach]

This appears to be a verbatim quote (given the BrE and multiple typos), so it would be beneficial to link or at least state the source for said quote, to lend it appropriate credibility.

[pfmoore]

should @pfmoore be added as PEP-Delegate

I'm fine with that.

[CAM-Gerlach]

@brettcannon let me know if you'd like me to add that

[brettcannon]

should @pfmoore be added as PEP-Delegate, given his standing delegation for packaging metadata and related PEPs?

When I wrote the PEP, Paul had not said he wanted to make a call on it or delegate to someone else, so having it on the first go was a bit premature.

But since Paul has agreed to it, I will add him shortly.

[brettcannon]

including some consequentially not accurate statements

🤨 That comes off as a bit of a dramatic statement to make for something that's not covered by the PR. Having that sentence here came off to me as, "Brett messed up somewhere, but he won't know how or where until I choose to tell him." I know you didn't mean anything by it, but it is a bit foreboding.

[CAM-Gerlach]

raised_eyebrow That comes off as a bit of a dramatic statement to make for something that's not covered by the PR. Having that sentence here came off to me as, "Brett messed up somewhere, but he won't know how or where until I choose to tell him." I know you didn't mean anything by it, but it is a bit foreboding.

You're 100% right @brettcannon , it was a serious lapse of judgement on my part to include that whole paragraph, and one I should have thought better of as it wasn't relevant to the PR and only adds unnecessary, unhelpful and nonconstructive negativity. I belatedly removed it and sincerely apologize to you for it; I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt, but I couldn't blame you if you didn't reading back now what I wrote. I was tired, hungry and frustrated late last night due to other reasons and should have had the sense to leave it for the morning.

Just for the record, what I was referring to was just some (very understandable) confusion over the exact normalization algorithm and what it does and doesn't do, which I brought up on the thread.