# [opensource-dev] Consensus? was: Client-side scripting in Snowglobe

Carlo Wood carlo at alinoe.com
Mon Feb 22 15:56:43 PST 2010

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 <carlo at alinoe.com>