[xwiki-devs] Should we move to XML 1.1 in XAR ?
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
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:[email protected]> 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).
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 <[email protected]> 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 <mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <mailto:[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Thomas Mortagne
-- Thomas Mortagne
+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 <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
On 22 Feb 2016 at 12:06:13, Thomas Mortagne ([email protected](mailto:[email protected])) 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+Specificatio... 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
participants (4)
-
Marius Dumitru Florea -
Paul Libbrecht -
Thomas Mortagne -
vincent＠massol.net