Hi, Ladislav Lhotka <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > consider the following situation: > > module A { > ... > prefix a > identity X; > leaf foo { > type identityref { > base X; > } > } > } > > module B { > ... > import A { > prefix a; > } > leaf fooref { > type leafref { > path "/a:foo"; > } > } > } > > What is now a correct lexical form of fooref's value? Could it be just > 'X', or is the prefix required, i.e. 'a:X'? > > This is not very clear from RFC 7950 (sections 9.9.4 and 9.10.3). I am > inclined to require the prefix.
9.10.3 says: If the prefix is not present, the namespace of the identityref is the default namespace in effect on the element that contains the identityref value. so the interpretation of a missing prefix in "fooref" is that the identity is defined in module B. (a missing prefix in "foo" means that the identity is defined in module A) /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
