Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> They are using definitions which are *different* to the normal. > If that were true, and if there actually *was* a 'normal' definition, > why would they be using a different definition in the first place?
Because it suits their purpose. > I say you're wrong, [...] I think most of your current posts can be boiled down to this. When you start bringing new data again, then I'll write more, but I have to agree with whoever it was that commented that this is going nowhere fast again now. There's so much else to do and this discussion about how best to help the misunderstanders isn't doing it. It's time to bow out with: > I wasn't suggesting the *document* is ambiguous. I'm only suggesting the > meaning of *one* *specific* word *could* be ambiguous to some, and that > it's *our* job to make sure people understand it correctly, not that of > those who read it. ...a reminder that it's impossible to do this. We have to assume that the reader of the English-language version is actually capable of reading English and understanding the words. For all we know, someone could be interpreting "the" as a reference to a hot drink, so I hope that you will clarify it for them, because it's our job to make sure people understand it no matter how dumb they're being, right? If they are in any doubt about what some of it means, there is no shortage of people to ask. If some of the recent crop of people who started on about how documentation is not software had bothered to do that... -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
