And that's my bottom line. The term can only be understood to mean its intended meaning, if you have previously encountered it and have rote learnt to interpret that particular combination of those two words, when used in the specifications for a computer language, to mean that intended meaning. There is no way to arrive at that interpretation through logical analysis of the juxtaposition of the two words themselves. Even in context.

So a well-thought-out unified standards document would not have that problem at least, since it opens with a set of statements saying what is meant by certain terms including this one, and refers up to parent standards' body mandated usage for some things too.

Ad-hoc documentation cobbled together without any formalism will suffer from "must be clear from this context only," but a uniform document does not. Every usage for a formal term could be hyperlinked to its definition, perhaps.

There is no way to arrive at that interpretation through logical analysis of the juxtaposition of the two words themselves. Even in context.

I do beg to differ on this point. Others have chimed in and said that "behavior" is assumed to mean "specification of behavior", and that is the entire context of the document.

—John