The way in which Compatibility defines "SMILES" may imply normativity to some readers. Consider this thread.
Ways to avoid this misperception:
Use a name different from SMILES. For example add a descriptive prefix to the term SMILES. Or come up with something else altogether. Possibilities include:
"ProtoSMILES"
Explicitly state that the definition is for comparison purposes only.
Re-iterate the difficulty (or even impossibility) of defining "SMILES" today.
Re-emphasize that the definition says nothing about existing software implementations, which are explicitly disregarded.
Bring in some citations acknowledging the various kinds of SMILES, like this one.
Re-iterate that the purpose of the paper is not to define SMILES, but a fully-specified language the works like it.
The way in which Compatibility defines "SMILES" may imply normativity to some readers. Consider this thread.
Ways to avoid this misperception:
(1) by itself may do the job.