Re: RFC2396bis wording, opinions?

On May 28, 2004, at 4:34 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:

>       This document doesn't limit the scope of what might be a 
> resource;
>       rather, the term "resource" is used in a general sense for 
> whatever
>       might be assigned a URI for the sake of later identification.

Suggestion 1: s/later//
Suggestion 2: s/ for the sake of later identification//

I think at least #1 is required, since it might already have had the 
URI assigned.  But really I think that in this context, the whole 
phrase beginning "for the sake of..." is superfluous. -Tim

Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 19:50:58 UTC