Note, however, that the term "open faced" is always applied. If you advertise a thing as a sandwich, and you hand the customer an open faced sandwich, they will be annoyed at you.
Indeed, under the above-cited official bulletin from the New York State Department of Taxation, all are, legally speaking, sandwiches.
And if you attempt to skirt tax regulations by saying that, no, really, it only has one slice of bread and therefore isn't a sandwich, then you are quite literally fighting City Hall, which does not go well for the one fighting against City Hall.
Furthermore, the USDA's “Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book,” provides some guidance on what should and should not be considered a “sandwich” stating that “[t]ypical ‘close-faced’ sandwiches consist of two slices of bread or the top and bottom section of sliced bun that enclose meat or poultry.” It also distinguishes between closed and open-faced sandwiches, indicating that both are considered “sandwiches." The seeming limitation to meat or poultry is there to specify which types of sandwiches are within the USDA's purview, as vegetable or novelty confection sandwiches are not regulated by the USDA.
If gyro is a sandwich, then a taco is a sandwich, and I'm not sure that is leading to a useful definition of sandwich.
A gyro is indeed a sandwich. It is meat, vegetables, and sauce, in a flatbread. It is no different from a California turkey club wrap.
Inasmuch as a California turkey club wrap is "meat, vegetable, and sauce in a tortilla" and is a sandwich then a taco, which is "meat, vegetable, and sauce in a tortilla" is also a sandwich. Further, attempting to state that tacos have hard shells is an invalid defense as you would be hard-pressed to argue that taco trucks, which sell tacos of the soft variety, are not selling tacos. They are most definitely selling tacos. Yes, tacos are sandwiches.
Again, the term "ice cream" is, however, necessary. If you ask your significant other, "Would you like a sandwich?" and you then hand them a Good Humor... they won't be in a good humor.
Only as far as specifying what type of sandwich you want. It is customary to specify what type of sandwich one wants. As anyone with a child knows, you don't ask, "do you want a sandwich?" You ask, "What kind of sandwich do you want?" And if my daughter tries saying "an ice cream sandwich," the reply is "no ice cream for lunch," as opposed to "that's not a sandwich." An ice cream sandwich is a sandwich, but it is a sweet dessert sandwich.
So... Pizza and french onion soup are sandwiches, by that definition. I daresay with "bounded by" you end up with "salad and a side of bread sticks" qualifies, as no salad exists in the serving beyond the bread sticks, it is technically bounded by the bread.
That's not bounded. That's adjacent to. Now, were you to put a Caesar salad onto a tortilla, then yes, that would be a sandwich. Specifically, a Caesar salad wrap.
I suggest that you have rendered the term "sandwich" ineffective for use in language.
And, to further prove the point, though it may be to gild refined gold, to paint the lily, to throw a perfume on the violet, or add another hue unto the rainbow, no less an authority and legal scholar as the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg opined that yes, a hot dog, being a single unbroken unit of bread cradling meat and condiments (or any other filling), is a sandwich.
I, myself, am loathe to tread beyond the path blazed by Justice Ginsburg, the USDA, the California Board of Equalization, and the New York State Department of Revenue. If these authorities are willing to say that a hot dog is a sandwich
under the law, then I say that the aforementioned chart of sandwich alignment is in error as a hot dog is a lawful good sandwich. It is a sandwich under the law and hot dogs are good.
