RE: What is a supported property?

>    From following the whole discussion, I can see what you're trying
>    to get at, but that wording is incredibly confusing. If I saw that
>    in a specification with no further explanation, I'd have no idea of
>    what it meant.
>
> Well, that wouldn't be a good thing (:-).  All suggestions for
> how to make this clearer/better are greatly appreciated!
> However the "great resourcetype debate" falls out, minimally
> we need to clearly define what the supported-*-set properties
> mean.

I have to agree that the suggested wording is very confusing (but I'll need
a moment to think of a reasonable alternative).

Tim