People sometimes take me way too seriously. Joey's right, I had seen the thread but didn't intend to reply, only did because of blah's post and only replied to his. The link was not for the method to define orientation schemes (and it's not even "the" one) but solely for the new orientation scheme and its benefit I had proposed there. And back then I only briefly included the definition method in order to help explain the new proposed orientation scheme and how it differs from the standard one. One fine day I intend to write a comprehensive article about this stuff (at least the way I see it), and I've come to the conclusion that until then it's pretty useless to mention it, which is the main reason I usually don't do that anymore these days (here I only did because blah already had).
Edit: Looks like the misunderstanding was that we were talking about two different kinds of "definition", one meaning one specific orientation scheme and one meaning a method to define such schemes (and sorry for using the fuzzy word "schemes", but I hope it's clear enough). The latter kind is somewhat off-topic, sorry for not making that clear.