Sadly 'what constitutes a tablet' seems to be the heart of many a debate these days. It's eerily reminiscent of the great netbook debate of 2008. Eventually an extremely confining definition will be agreed upon by the gregs, but many would be quick to argue with your current definition of a tablet. What makes a PDA a PDA, or a tablet a tablet, afterall, if they contain the same parts/interface/software? My point is: if you ask anybody they'll likely argue that a tablet is something more specific.

I remember the debates that raged in these golden forums about the N900 not being a NIT, but a phone -- largely due to the cellular radio and smaller screen. Why couldn't it be both?

But I too agree with your definition and acceptance that this title can easily be inclusive to many other devices. I suppose what I was trying to convey is the inanity of excessive classification and how little bearing it has is general upon anything other than debates of definition.