I'd disagree with you on that. If the document can't clearly define the terms it's using, it cannot function as a formal specification of a language. The writin

I'd disagree with you on that. If the document can't clearly define the terms it's using, it cannot function as a formal specification of a language. The writing as it stands now is far too ambiguous to serve such a role. You have no reasonable retort to me except to say that the definition wasn't even a definition, and after that there is indeed no more abstract definition you can even point to. You're left using undefined terms to defend your interpretation as the "correct" one. That's not sufficient to defend the document as a specification. In fact, that's just further criticism of it. Like I said, I'm confident your interpretation is the intended one. But you cannot prove it as such, and that's where we disagree.