Unless we expect to get a value that can switch automagically between all and none (and maybe first) at some point in the future and want to reserve auto for that, I agree we can use auto instead of first. As for introducing an non automatic first, we can always do it later, so let's defer that until we get demand / use cases.

Somehow i missed this request for i18n feedback, but I'm wondering whether there was a particular reason that that label was added to this issue. Nothing is coming to mind that applies here.

I also would have naively expected the auto alternation to be between none and all, rather than none and first.

If auto is used for that alternation, it would generally produce first/all most of the time, since none would only be applied when the para starts with a single-letter word. That somehow seems back-to-front for me.

(Looking at examples, i noted that another approach here is to use none and capitalise the remainder of a word if it is more than one letter long.)

I don't know whether that's of any help.

Somehow i missed this request for i18n feedback, but I'm wondering whether there was a particular reason that that label was added to this issue.

@r12a Well, we know the behavior for space-separated languages requires this automatic behavior, where a first line beginning with a space is treated like 'none' and one without is wrapped in similar to 'all' (but subsequent lines are not so wrapped). The question is whether there are languages that would not want this automatic distinction, and would instead prefer to always wrap the first line tightly to its initial letter.