On 08/23/2016 09:33 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 08:42:34AM +0200, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
On 08/23/2016 12:08 AM, Alex Campbell wrote:
The intention in this case is obviously to evaluate the 'must' statement if
the container contains any values; what would break if we said that
A non-presence container exists in the data tree if and only if it has
any children which exist in the data tree.
thus disallowing the existence of empty NP-containers in the data tree?
The question is where is the misunderstanding.
"If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
the tree."
What does this mean? I believe there is confusion based on "the tree"
refering not to the data tree but the Xpath context. At least I hoped until
I realized the text was introduced as a solution to Y41 'clarification of
"must" in NP-container'. That definitely means it addresses the must
statements in the non-presence containers and it means "the tree" as in the
data tree.
My reading is that 'tree' refers to the 'accessible tree' used earlier
in the sentence. The accessible tree itself is defined just above the
quoted sentence. If my reading of the text is correct, then the
obvious clarification would be:
OLD
If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
the tree.
NEW
If a node that exists in the accessible tree has a non-presence
container as a child, then the non-presence container also exists in
the accessible tree.
/js
So should the must statements defined in the non-presence container
which is now part of the accessible tree be evaluated or not?
Vladimir
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
