Getting rid of resources.
Getting rid of 'resource'.
change 'conforming autoloader' definition
I'd be curious what @simensen thinks, but personally, I have no problem the word resource used in this PSR. It has been properly defined in the terms and it lends itself to the expandability Beau has been talking about. The term has good base in rfc2616. I'm not against changing it to file, path, class, but it is not unclear as resource, either. If future leaning is a goal, I would leave it as is. The text does not read better, IMO, given this change. It's fine.
@AmyStephen I'm neutral on this. Since what I'm looking for isn't a part of PSR-4 anyway, having "resource" in the domain language of PSR-4 could actually make what I want to do a little more complicated. I definitely don't see it as adding a lot of value for my purposes.
I spoke with Paul about this on IRC. I know it was a token for what I've been asking for and I told him I appreciated it, but if people are confused/don't like the name resources, I don't want it kept in on my behalf since it isn't what I was asking for anyway.
I also wouldn't mind if it stays in. But I won't be fighting for it if a lot of people don't like it. :)
Thanks for looking out for me. We can talk offline about it more if you want to.
We're removing this, but not with this PR. There is no need for it to stay in, as it does not achieve what @simensen wanted, was not MEANT to achieve what @simensen wanted and hurts the chances of a "Resource PSR" happening in the future. It was more to do with remote file systems apparently, and they're definitely still allowed by my PR to remove the resource language.