Minor issue with quality types listing

Hi all,

I just noticed a minor problem with the quality types listing in one example.

characters	The text contains characters that are garbled or incorrect or that are not used in the language in which the content appears.	
A text should have a '•' but instead has a '¥' sign.
A text translated into German omits the umlauts over 'ü', 'ö', and 'ä'.
S or T	
misspelling	The text contains a misspelling.	
A German text misspells the word "Zustellung" as "Zustellüng".
S or T


The example for misspelling could appear to be an example of "characters" because it deals with the specific issue of umlauts mentioned above. It isn't actually that issue because Zustellüng would be an orthographically valid word in German (even though it doesn't actually occur in German), but I think this example can cause confusion. So how about we change the example to this:

A German text misspells the word "Zustellung" as "Zusetllung".

I think that makes the intent clearer. Then we could also change the example in the previous row to read:

A text translated into German systematically omits the umlauts over 'ü', 'ö', and 'ä'.

Because a simple omission that results in an orthographically valid word would be a spelling error, not a general character error, but something systematic isn't just a spelling error.

Would anyone object to these changes, which would be made for clarity? I don't see these as substantive changes, but rather ones to prevent potential misunderstanding.

-Arle