22 Feb
2016
22 Feb
'16
12:06 p.m.
As recommended by W3C we are manipulating XML 1.0 in XAR format but
what I did not know is that XML 1.0 does not support all possible
characters (I tough at worst it would simply be encoded as a UTF8
entity but seems not) and we just got a report of Woodstox failing
because of some character it cannot write in XML 1.0 (""Invalid white
space character (0x1) in text to output (in xml 1.1, could output as a
character entity)").
So I'm wondering if we should move to XML 1.1. It's critical IMO that
we are able to export anything that can be stored in XWikiDocument and
in the database and it's the case here.
In theory this is most probably a breakage for people using a XML 1.0
parser but not sure how breaking it is in practice.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 for this but I won't apply it until I get more point of view
(ideally from people having more experience that me on XML 1.0 vs
1.1).
--
Thomas Mortagne
22 Feb
22 Feb
12:11 p.m.
export the character "0x1" ???
This seems like a character for the old 7-bit-modem-based terminals.
I believe this one should just be prohibited at the entrance level.
I do not know of any valid meaning for this character.
Do you have such?
Paul
Thomas Mortagne
<mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com>
22 February 2016 at 12:06
As recommended by W3C we are manipulating XML 1.0 in XAR format but
what I did not know is that XML 1.0 does not support all possible
characters (I tough at worst it would simply be encoded as a UTF8
entity but seems not) and we just got a report of Woodstox failing
because of some character it cannot write in XML 1.0 (""Invalid white
space character (0x1) in text to output (in xml 1.1, could output as a
character entity)").
So I'm wondering if we should move to XML 1.1. It's critical IMO that
we are able to export anything that can be stored in XWikiDocument and
in the database and it's the case here.
In theory this is most probably a breakage for people using a XML 1.0
parser but not sure how breaking it is in practice.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 for this but I won't apply it until I get more point of view
(ideally from people having more experience that me on XML 1.0 vs
1.1).
12:14 p.m.
No I don't have any valid use case for this character (did not even
know what it was) but what I know is that you can have it :)
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Paul Libbrecht <paul(a)hoplahup.net> wrote:
export the character "0x1" ???
This seems like a character for the old 7-bit-modem-based terminals.
I believe this one should just be prohibited at the entrance level.
I do not know of any valid meaning for this character.
Do you have such?
Paul
--
Thomas Mortagne
Thomas Mortagne
<mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com>
22 February 2016 at 12:06
As recommended by W3C we are manipulating XML 1.0 in XAR format but
what I did not know is that XML 1.0 does not support all possible
characters (I tough at worst it would simply be encoded as a UTF8
entity but seems not) and we just got a report of Woodstox failing
because of some character it cannot write in XML 1.0 (""Invalid white
space character (0x1) in text to output (in xml 1.1, could output as a
character entity)").
So I'm wondering if we should move to XML 1.1. It's critical IMO that
we are able to export anything that can be stored in XWikiDocument and
in the database and it's the case here.
In theory this is most probably a breakage for people using a XML 1.0
parser but not sure how breaking it is in practice.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 for this but I won't apply it until I get more point of view
(ideally from people having more experience that me on XML 1.0 vs
1.1).
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
1 Mar
1 Mar
2:37 p.m.
Note that it looks like the old packager plugin (based on dom4j) does
not complain and produce a  in this case (which the XML parser
does not like too much...).
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:14 PM, Thomas Mortagne
<thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com> wrote:
No I don't have any valid use case for this
character (did not even
know what it was) but what I know is that you can have it :)
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Paul Libbrecht <paul(a)hoplahup.net> wrote:
--
Thomas Mortagne
export the character "0x1" ???
This seems like a character for the old 7-bit-modem-based terminals.
I believe this one should just be prohibited at the entrance level.
I do not know of any valid meaning for this character.
Do you have such?
Paul
--
Thomas Mortagne Thomas Mortagne
<mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com>
22 February 2016 at 12:06
As recommended by W3C we are manipulating XML 1.0 in XAR format but
what I did not know is that XML 1.0 does not support all possible
characters (I tough at worst it would simply be encoded as a UTF8
entity but seems not) and we just got a report of Woodstox failing
because of some character it cannot write in XML 1.0 (""Invalid white
space character (0x1) in text to output (in xml 1.1, could output as a
character entity)").
So I'm wondering if we should move to XML 1.1. It's critical IMO that
we are able to export anything that can be stored in XWikiDocument and
in the database and it's the case here.
In theory this is most probably a breakage for people using a XML 1.0
parser but not sure how breaking it is in practice.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 for this but I won't apply it until I get more point of view
(ideally from people having more experience that me on XML 1.0 vs
1.1).
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs 
3:44 p.m.
+1
I just checked https://www.w3.org/TR/xml11/#sec-xml11 and I think the
breakage is acceptable.
Thanks,
Marius
On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Thomas Mortagne <thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com>
wrote:
As recommended by W3C we are manipulating XML 1.0 in
XAR format but
what I did not know is that XML 1.0 does not support all possible
characters (I tough at worst it would simply be encoded as a UTF8
entity but seems not) and we just got a report of Woodstox failing
because of some character it cannot write in XML 1.0 (""Invalid white
space character (0x1) in text to output (in xml 1.1, could output as a
character entity)").
So I'm wondering if we should move to XML 1.1. It's critical IMO that
we are able to export anything that can be stored in XWikiDocument and
in the database and it's the case here.
In theory this is most probably a breakage for people using a XML 1.0
parser but not sure how breaking it is in practice.
WDYT ?
I'm +1 for this but I won't apply it until I get more point of view
(ideally from people having more experience that me on XML 1.0 vs
1.1).
--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
3:49 p.m.
On 22 Feb 2016 at 12:06:13, Thomas Mortagne
(thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
As recommended by W3C we are manipulating XML 1.0 in
XAR format but
what I did not know is that XML 1.0 does not support all possible
characters (I tough at worst it would simply be encoded as a UTF8
entity but seems not) and we just got a report of Woodstox failing
because of some character it cannot write in XML 1.0 (""Invalid white
space character (0x1) in text to output (in xml 1.1, could output as a
character entity)").
So I'm wondering if we should move to XML 1.1. It's critical IMO that
we are able to export anything that can be stored in XWikiDocument and
in the database and it's the case here.
In theory this is most probably a breakage for people using a XML 1.0
parser but not sure how breaking it is in practice.
WDYT ?
I’m not an expert in XML 1.1 vs 1.0 but it seems acceptable to me. Maybe increase the
format version of the XAR spec to 1.3 (I think we’re at version 1.2 right now).
BTW I’d also list the various version formats
on http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/XAR+Module+Specificati… and
explain the differences, i.e. what changes each version brings.
Thanks
-Vincent
I'm +1 for this but I won't apply it until I
get more point of view
(ideally from people having more experience that me on XML 1.0 vs
1.1).
--
Thomas Mortagne
3217
days inactive
3225
days old
5 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Paul Libbrecht -
Thomas Mortagne -
vincent＠massol.net