Dne 11. 01. 23 v 4:16 Fengchong (frank) napsal(a):
Hi all,
In RFC 7950 section 6.4.1:
o Names without a namespace prefix belong to the same namespace as
the identifier of the current node. Inside a grouping, that
namespace is affected by where the grouping is used (see
Section 7.13 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950#section-7.13>).
Inside a typedef, that namespace is affected by
where the typedef is referenced. If a typedef is defined and
referenced within a grouping, the namespace is affected by where
the grouping is used (see Section 7.13
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7950#section-7.13>).
and section 5.4:
Grouping, type, and identity names are resolved in the context in
which they are defined, rather than the context in which they are
used. Users of groupings, typedefs, and identities are not required
to import modules or include submodules to satisfy all references
made by the original definition. This behaves like static scoping in
a conventional programming language.
I think these two section have some conflicts. If groupings and typedefs
are resolved in the context where they are defined, why names without
prefix belongs to the namespace where they are used?
I don't think there is any conflict. The quoted text from 5.4 can
actually be expanded as "Grouping names, type names and identity names
are resolved ..."
I may be missing something because I also don't see the XPath expression
part that you have in the subject.
Lada
The authors who defined the groupings and typedefs don’t know where
these definitions are used, they only know the place where these
definitions are defined.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
