Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email protected]> 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.
I think this is a useful and correct clarification. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
