15:07:38 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #swbp
15:07:38 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2005/11/29-swbp-irc
15:07:44 <benadida> zakim, ??P1 is jeremy
15:07:44 <Zakim> +jeremy; got it
15:08:50 <benadida> rrsagent, make log public
15:09:18 <Zakim> +??P0
15:09:23 <MarkB> zakim, i am ?
15:09:23 <Zakim> +MarkB; got it
15:11:12 <benadida> zakim, agenda+ CURIE syntax
15:11:12 <Zakim> agendum 1 added
15:11:19 <benadida> zakim, agenda+ XSLT for RDf/A
15:11:19 <Zakim> agendum 2 added
15:11:23 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
15:14:20 <benadida> take up agendum 1
15:14:56 <benadida> MarkB: we're talking about CURIE/URI here, we started with delimiters or enclosers, square brackets
15:15:06 <jeremy> Just catching up on the mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf/2005Nov/0049 is brilliant
15:16:37 <MarkB> If current doc is "http://xyz.com/a/b.html"
15:16:48 <jeremy> the following is a legal rel URI //www.w3.org
15:17:09 <jeremy> also the following //[aaaa::aaaa]
15:17:22 <jeremy> (I think, I can't remember IPv6 IP address format)
15:19:03 <benadida> someone proposed [cc]license
15:19:22 <Steven> I did
15:19:59 <benadida> Ben: do we have any further thoughts on this?
15:20:11 <benadida> MarkB: to be honest, I don't really care about which syntax we choose.
15:20:40 <benadida> ... our HTML audience isn't very familiar with QNames, so it might not be a big problem 
15:20:44 <jeremy> My only requirement is that the syntax is   X [a-zA-Z0-9]+ : .*    where X is a non-alphabetic
15:22:29 <benadida> MarkB: [cc]license is not a legal URI, so it would be an okay syntax
15:22:44 <benadida> Jeremy: as long as the syntax we agree on is not a legal URI, then I'm happy
15:23:52 <benadida> Ben: but QNames are legal URIs
15:24:03 <benadida> Jeremy: dc:title is a legal URI
15:24:21 <benadida> ... in terms that it matches the URI spec
15:25:09 <benadida> MarkB: I don't think that's a legal URI anymore
15:25:21 <MarkB> If we are in "http://www.w3.org/index.html"...
15:25:32 <jeremy> consider mailto:foo
15:25:45 <MarkB> ...then it used to be regarded as valid to say "http:index2.html"
15:26:34 <benadida> ... but that's kind of frowned upon now
15:26:44 <jeremy> path          = path-abempty    ; begins with "/" or is empty
15:26:44 <jeremy>                  / path-absolute   ; begins with "/" but not "//"
15:26:44 <jeremy>                  / path-noscheme   ; begins with a non-colon segment
15:26:44 <jeremy>                  / path-rootless   ; begins with a segment
15:26:44 <jeremy>                  / path-empty      ; zero characters
15:26:52 <jeremy>  path-noscheme = segment-nz-nc *( "/" segment )
15:28:00 <jeremy> oops wrong rules ... try again
15:28:56 <benadida> Jeremy: 2 sensible choices: a) CURIEs sensibly different b) CURIEs similar and gives us features, but requires bracketing (or something like it)
15:29:17 <benadida> ... making CURIEs look like QNAmes is a defensible position
15:29:30 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
15:29:38 <jeremy> URI           = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
15:29:50 <jeremy> hier-part     = "//" authority path-abempty
15:29:50 <jeremy>                  / path-absolute
15:29:50 <jeremy>                  / path-rootless
15:29:50 <jeremy>                  / path-empty
15:30:01 <jeremy> path-rootless = segment-nz *( "/" segment )
15:30:02 <benadida> MarkB: I feel that we are on strong ground with this proposal.
15:30:05 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2005/11/29-swbp-irc#T15-30-02
15:30:11 <Steven> rrsagent, pointer?
15:30:11 <RRSAgent> See http://www.w3.org/2005/11/29-swbp-irc#T15-30-11
15:30:19 <benadida> ... the point that Norm got to, that Best Practices are not great.
15:34:44 <benadida> What do we know. The following syntaxes are workable
15:34:51 <benadida> - [cc:license] as CURIE/URI
15:35:01 <benadida> - [cc]license as a CURIE
15:35:17 <benadida> .. and a CURIE/URI
15:35:47 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
15:36:08 <MarkB> [protocol]//mylocation/a/b#x
15:36:50 <MarkB> {$a}abc
15:37:12 <MarkB> {/a/b}a
15:37:47 <MarkB> Steven's other syntax proposal:
15:37:52 <MarkB> :a:b
15:38:28 <MarkB> [[subst]:][[scheme]://]...etc.
15:40:27 <benadida> MarkB: the advantage of stepping outside of xmlns is that we can use any substitution mechanism we want, including some that can be Xincluded
15:40:58 <MarkB> s/stepping outside of xmlns/stepping outside of QNames-proper/
15:42:49 <benadida> MarkB: [missed some notes here]
15:43:23 <benadida> MarkB: if we go for a different qname syntax, we should also add the extra bits for substitution
15:44:07 <benadida> Jeremy: if we wrote a CURIE note as a standalone document
15:44:14 <benadida> ... the prefix-binding should be application-specific
15:44:30 <benadida> ... the CURIEs would be the same in SPARQL, XHTML, etc...
15:44:40 <benadida> ... but the mechanism by which prefixes are bound to URIs *could* be different
15:45:23 <benadida> MarkB: this would give the IPTC what they want, as well
15:47:08 <Zakim> -MarkB
15:47:53 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
15:48:08 <benadida> agendum 2
15:48:11 <benadida> take up agendumj 2
15:48:14 <benadida> take up agendum 2
15:55:48 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
15:57:36 <Zakim> -jeremy
15:57:37 <Zakim> -Ben_Adida
15:57:39 <Zakim> SW_BPD(rdfxhtml)10:00AM has ended
15:57:40 <Zakim> Attendees were Ben_Adida, jeremy, MarkB
15:57:58 <benadida> Jeremy and Ben agree to Christmas deadline for RDF/A XSLT
15:58:06 <benadida> ACTION: Jeremy to have XSLT ready by Christmas
15:59:48 <benadida> rrsagent, draft minutes
15:59:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2005/11/29-swbp-minutes.html benadida
16:04:34 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
16:05:32 <jjc> jjc has joined #swbp
16:35:09 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
16:58:50 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
17:59:34 <Steven> Steven has joined #swbp
18:31:21 <Zakim> Zakim has left #swbp
18:31:42 <Steven> rrsagent, bye
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> I see 1 open action item saved in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/29-swbp-actions.rdf :
18:31:42 <RRSAgent> ACTION: Jeremy to have XSLT ready by Christmas [1]
18:31:42 <RRSAgent>   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/11/29-swbp-irc#T15-58-06