Re: removing constraints on 'resource' [024-identity]

On May 26, 2004, at 4:01 PM, Tim Bray wrote:

> I do *not* support

It has been pointed out that my message was ambiguous.  To rephrase: I 
disagree with Dan Connolly's original proposal in 
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/uri/2004May/0026.html> to change 
the wording away from "has been named or described" - the change 
creates a philosophical mountain which pedants can attempt to climb by 
discovering something which could in principle be described but isn't a 
resource, with such effort having no practical purpose.

However, while I find the existing text tolerable, I find Larry's 
proposed revision much more user-friendly and unsurprising. -Tim