Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-10-21 at 13:40 +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz> 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)
>
> To be more specific, here is an example instance:
>
> <foo xmlns="...namespace of A...">X</foo>
> <fooref xmlns="...namespace of B...">X</fooref>
>
> It can be argued that this is correct because (sec. 9.9.4):
>
> A leafref value is lexically represented the same way as the leaf it
> references represents its value.
>
> That is, the same lexical representation is assumed, which is exactly what we
> have in the example.
It doesn't say that the lexical value is exactly the same, but
"represented the same way" - so when the lexical representation is
context dependent we have this situation.
> It seems that we agree that it is incorrect, but then sec. 9.9.4 should be
> clarified.
/martin
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
