Exactly. It was, and is illogical to have a dual meaning. Sticking with the first, widely-proliferated meaning we already had, which existed because of its use

Exactly. It was, and is illogical to have a dual meaning. Sticking with the first, widely-proliferated meaning we already had, which existed because of its usefulness, along with its direct honouring of the structure of what it was describing, is IMO the superior choice. This versus cementing the source of the confusion - the secondary meaning - even further by introducing it not only as an additional standard, but also as the de facto, nullifying years of text and understanding and rendering it inaccurate. To me, that was, and is absolute madness.