There is no need for A != B. Why not define the words A and B such that A includes B? B \in A
Then you can still talk about the subject, since there is still a C = A \not B, such that the intersection of B and C is empty. In other words, yes Client-Extensions include plugins that implement Client-side scripting, but it won't give confusion because if someone means that, they will say "Client-side scripting", so if they DON'T say that, they probably mean something else, either something broader (including client-side script plugins) or something entirely different even. On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:51:20AM +0000, Morgaine wrote: > The moral of the story as it pertains to our topic is that when the superset > is > ambiguous as in our case (all scripts running client-side are naturally > "client-side scripts"), then the ambiguity won't stop until you subset the > space into disjoint subsets so that you can discuss each subset separately > without confusion. > > That's what I've been trying to do, because "client-side script" is a > universal > term that naturally denotes all scripts running in the client by simple plain > English, so you can't call just one subset of the scripts by that name without > creating ambiguity. -- Carlo Wood <ca...@alinoe.com> _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
