Thanks all. > On 11 Dec 2015, at 09:50, Jernej Tuljak <jern...@mg-soft.si> wrote: > > Ladislav Lhotka je 11.12.2015 ob 9:55 napisal: >> >> A code that evaluating these functions needs to know a lot about the >> underlying YANG data model anyway, so I think it is no problem to resolve >> arbitrary QNames. I am thus in favour of William's proposal.
I like the idea of just thinking of it as a QName. This also suggests a general principle that any future functions that needed to refer to types, identities etc would use QNames? > If there are no existing functions that take a prefixed string literal, why > not simply replace the module name argument with a prefix string? I don't see > why a module name needs to be used here at all either - in fact, it seems to > be promoting the idea of breaking out of module containment using XPath > instead of discouraging it - you should not be able to refer to an identity > if it is not defined within an imported or the enclosing module. I assume that "module name" always meant "prefix" because otherwise how would one deal with namespaces and revisions? Using a QName clarifies that it's a prefix. William _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
