Re: [YANG] extension naming scope

Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think the extension naming scope needs to be removed, and extensions
>> need to be in the same scope as rpc, notification, and all objects.
>> When converted to YIN, an extension element is in the same XML namespace
>> as the object instances defined in the same module.
> 
> I don't think this is a problem.  The same thing is done in XSD, where
> e.g. simpleTypes and elements have different naming scopes.  In XSD,
> there can be a simpleType named 'foo' and an element named 'foo' and a
> group named 'foo' at the same time.
> 

I disagree.

   leaf foo { type int16; }

   extension foo {
     argument bar {
       yin-element false;
     }
   }

These are both defined in the same XML namespace.

   <foo>17</foo>

   <foo bar="some string"/>

The <element generated for the extension is in the same namespace
as the one generated for the leaf.

> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> 

Andy

_______________________________________________
YANG mailing list
YANG@ietf.org
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang