Avoid UX recommendations around Token-Aware CashAddress types

[bitjson]

Thank you to @jonas-lundqvist, @joemarct, and @Rucknium for each independently raising this question in the past 72 hours! CashToken Devs discussion, BCR post (Lots of final reviews happening as we're collecting stakeholder responses.)

The CHIP still contains a confusing recommendation around token-aware CashAddresses:

Token-aware wallet software – wallet software which supports management of tokens – should use these CashAddress version byte values in newly created addresses.

We've generally avoided including most "application-layer recommendations" in this CHIP to keep it focused on consensus changes. (We make exceptions for CashAddress types and BIP69 extension because they are well-defined and require complete standardization, and we make one final exception for Specification of Token Supply Definitions because it's really more of a warning to token issuers rather than a recommendation.)

So I think the solution to this question is to simply remove the recommendation portion of that sentence; the spec should only define Token-Aware CashAddresses and avoid making any UX recommendations.

We should start on a separate CHIP for extending BIP21, BIPs 70-73, and/or the JSON Payment Protocol (@jonas-lundqvist started outlining an extension for BIP21 here) much like CHIP-BCMR: Bitcoin Cash Metadata Registries is a separate "application-layer" CHIP for how wallets should display token names, symbols, icons, etc.