> On 10 Jun 2015, at 11:01, Juergen Schoenwaelder > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:56:51AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >> >>> On 10 Jun 2015, at 09:22, Juergen Schoenwaelder >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 09:05:07AM +0200, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>> >>>> It is also important for the JSON encoding - it means there won’t >>>> necessarily be a way for mapping XML-encoded instance to JSON and vice >>>> versa. >>>> >>> >>> Because of two different namespace identifiers. So here we go. >> >> Yes, three in fact. Blame XML for this. >> > > No, I am not blaming XML. There are only two namespace identifiers; > XML uses a URI, you insist that JSON uses a YANG module name. The fact > that these _two_ namespace identifiers are different requires to have > YANG modules at hand in order to do a conversion between XML encoded > YANG instance data and JSON encoded YANG instance data. This is > something created by NETMOD (since JSON does not really have > namespaces), not something to blame others for.
From JSON point of view, the module name is an ideal namespace ID because it is a YANG identifier. Putting URIs to JSON text is a non-starter, and we have already discussed this. The use of URIs as namespace identifiers and URI-prefix duality in XML has been recognized as a design mistake by XML creators: http://blog.jclark.com/2010/01/xml-namespaces.html Lada > > /js > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
