On 05/04/2022 09:14, Jernej Tuljak wrote:
The presence of the intermediate grouping is a pure module-internal modeling detail. I believe introducing/removing the grouping is a non-breaking change as per RFC6020 (if memory serves right).Module updating rules state this: o Any set of data definition nodes may be replaced with another set of syntactically and semantically equivalent nodes. For example, a set of leafs may be replaced by a "uses" statement of a grouping with the same leafs. and this: In statements that have any data definition statements as substatements, those data definition substatements MUST NOT be reordered.Can you state that your second example may be rewritten into your first one while retaining semantic equivalence? For the second example, it is clear that XML encoding for that container imposes ordering on <bar> and <foo> (in that order), for the first, this is no longer true.
I stand corrected, I forgot about the second statement and also the special-case of RPC input/output:
The container's child nodes are encoded as subelements to the container element. If the container defines RPC input or output parameters, these subelements are encoded in the same order as they are defined within the "container" statement. Otherwise, the subelements are encoded in any order.
Regards, Robert
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
