gh-135243: improve CSV docs

[weflower]

Updates for GH-135243 to cpython/Doc/library/csv.rst file for these issues:

• Reworded the introduction to remove "so called CVS"
• Edited the first and second paragraphs to improve readability and information

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://cpython-previews--135246.org.readthedocs.build/

[python-cla-bot]

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

[picnixz]

The second paragraph doesn't need updates IMO.

[picnixz]

I am still not convinced by these changes. I agree that the paragraph can be improved, but I don't think the entire reformulation is better. Some parts of it are but not all.

Also, I would appreciate if we don't change the line wrap when possible because it makes diffs much harder to read.

---

Personally, I use "users" instead of "Programmers" because it's shorter and more common in our docs nowadays.

[picnixz]

There is only one standard. What the RFC defines are the specifications of CSV which is not restricted to CSV data. CSV data is what is being processed; CSV format how the data is presented before being processed and this is what the RFC defines.

[bedevere-app]

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

[weflower]

I have made the requested changes; please review again

[bedevere-app]

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@picnixz: please review the changes made to this pull request.

[hauntsaninja]

Thanks, but I think this change is not a substantial improvement, and it in fact makes some things worse (e.g. removing commentary in the first two sentences makes "the lack of a well defined standard" seem contradictory)