[lukan]

"The aim of this standard is first and foremost to prevent accidents with a disabling or fatal consequence, and secondly to lessen serious consequences caused by the occasional mishap that inevitably will occur in children's pursuit of expanding their level of competence, be it socially, intellectually or physically."

Sounds very reasonable to me, with no unrealistic goals. I think we should be careful to not argue about semantics ... my point above was just about the absolut statement of "no risk of permanent injury should a kid fall from the top". The way you written it (I did not follow the link) - it said 100% safe. If you meant "very close to 100%", what is what people usually do with natural language, then there is no disagreement.

[magicalhippo]

> what is what people usually do with natural language

Well I did write it using using natural language and not a programming language, so that can be taken as a given.

[lukan]

Ah, but we are also on a pedantic nerd site here, with many people wishing for more accuracy in common language..

And formal language for regulations are also not natural language and accuracy matters there, so I assumed the quote above from your friend was more in this style. Let's leave it at that :)

[magicalhippo]

Having a cold here so fuse a bit short, sorry about that.

[lukan]

That is funny, (or not really), because I also have a cold with infection of some nerves and my brain is partly scrambled by painkillers. Hope you get well soon!