Gez: > The reason that I think parsed unambiguously is meaningless is > that it's not a qualified term. I am so vain I though the phrase came from my suggestion for a compromise solution: (8) Strategically obfuscate validity by using terms or phrases that are technology neutral, like “correct syntax” or “grammar checking”. Greg: >> The definition of 'programmatically determined' is also quoted wrong. > Sorry; I was paraphrasing, and got a bit carried away. Gez, I very much appreciated your explanation. Despite the circular definition, your examples did distinguish between the two terms. Although I am still not certain they *couldn’t* be used interchangeably. >> Please everyone - if you want to know the meaning of terms - >> use the definitions that are provided in the guidelines' glossary >> at the bottom and linked to from each of the success criterion. That is only a partial solution to the problem. Yes, the definition is written well enough, but that is neither the problem nor the solution. I will try to explain better in another reply shortly.
Received on Sunday, 4 December 2005 16:01:35 UTC