Comment 20 for bug 1381136

I agree with switching the terminology to "resource name" from what the Template Guide defines as "resource ID". I think there are two good reasons for this. One is that "resource name" is a more natural term for this concept. They are used like what are called names in many languages and formalisms. And witness the fact that we all use this term anyway. Another is that "resource ID" is problematic. Like it or not, anyone who looks at the source sees the class named Resource and sees that it has a field named "id". Of course users do not have to know everything developers do, but having users use a term that is confusing to developers adds an unnecessary degree of difficulty.