You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xmlrpc-dev@ws.apache.org by bu...@apache.org on 2002/03/01 00:48:25 UTC
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6763] -
XMLWriter doesn't escape enough characters
DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6763>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://nagoya.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6763
XMLWriter doesn't escape enough characters
dlr@finemaltcoding.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Additional Comments From dlr@finemaltcoding.com 2002-02-28 23:48 -------
Comments from John Wilson <tu...@wilson.co.uk>, author of the MinML parser:
"
This isn't a bug. You just can't legally have a Unicode character with the
value 5 in a well formed XML document. Escaping it as  makes no
difference.
The relevant part of the spec is Section 4.1 Character and Entity References
"Well-Formedness Constraint: Legal Character
Characters referred to using character references must match the production
for Char. "
MinML currently and erroneously allows this - I'm in process of tightening
it's checking and it will soon reject it.
"
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6763] - XMLWriter doesn't escape enough characters
Posted by John Wilson <tu...@wilson.co.uk>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Redman" <ji...@ergotech.com>
To: <rp...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6763] - XMLWriter doesn't escape enough
characters
> From a position of complete ignorance, and without reading the spec. can
> someone clarify for me what this means?
>
> The part of the spec quoted here says that you can't used binary chars,
> however "" seems to meet the requirement of the spec in that it
> matches "the production for Char".
No the spec says that the result of turning the escaped character back to a
Unicode character must match the production Char. This control character
does not match that prduction.
There is an excellent annotated spec here
http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm
>
> Regardless of whether xmlrpc should be doing the escaping, it seems to me
> that I should be able to send a String that would be invalid XML by
> escaping each character - the resulting string seems to be valid. This is
> philosphically the same as sending new line characters as "\\n" in human
> readable strings.
>
> Is this the case or is it required that anything that may have a non-Char
> in it be base64 encoded?
If you want to send control characters (other than /r /n /t - and an XML
parser will mangle the /r and /n) then you need to use Base64 and agree a
Unicode encoding between the end points.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6763] - XMLWriter doesn't escape enough characters
Posted by John Wilson <tu...@wilson.co.uk>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Redman" <ji...@ergotech.com>
To: <rp...@xml.apache.org>
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6763] - XMLWriter doesn't escape enough
characters
> From a position of complete ignorance, and without reading the spec. can
> someone clarify for me what this means?
>
> The part of the spec quoted here says that you can't used binary chars,
> however "" seems to meet the requirement of the spec in that it
> matches "the production for Char".
No the spec says that the result of turning the escaped character back to a
Unicode character must match the production Char. This control character
does not match that prduction.
There is an excellent annotated spec here
http://www.xml.com/axml/testaxml.htm
>
> Regardless of whether xmlrpc should be doing the escaping, it seems to me
> that I should be able to send a String that would be invalid XML by
> escaping each character - the resulting string seems to be valid. This is
> philosphically the same as sending new line characters as "\\n" in human
> readable strings.
>
> Is this the case or is it required that anything that may have a non-Char
> in it be base64 encoded?
If you want to send control characters (other than /r /n /t - and an XML
parser will mangle the /r and /n) then you need to use Base64 and agree a
Unicode encoding between the end points.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6763] - XMLWriter doesn't escape enough characters
Posted by Jim Redman <ji...@ergotech.com>.
From a position of complete ignorance, and without reading the spec. can
someone clarify for me what this means?
The part of the spec quoted here says that you can't used binary chars,
however "" seems to meet the requirement of the spec in that it
matches "the production for Char".
Regardless of whether xmlrpc should be doing the escaping, it seems to me
that I should be able to send a String that would be invalid XML by
escaping each character - the resulting string seems to be valid. This is
philosphically the same as sending new line characters as "\\n" in human
readable strings.
Is this the case or is it required that anything that may have a non-Char
in it be base64 encoded?
Jim
On 2002.02.28 16:48:25 -0700 bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
> Comments from John Wilson <tu...@wilson.co.uk>, author of the MinML parser:
>
> "
> This isn't a bug. You just can't legally have a Unicode character with
> the
> value 5 in a well formed XML document. Escaping it as  makes no
> difference.
>
> The relevant part of the spec is Section 4.1 Character and Entity
> References
> "Well-Formedness Constraint: Legal Character
> Characters referred to using character references must match the
> production
> for Char. "
>
> MinML currently and erroneously allows this - I'm in process of
> tightening
> it's checking and it will soon reject it.
> "
>
--
Jim Redman
(505) 662 5156
http://www.ergotech.com
Re: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6763] - XMLWriter doesn't escape enough characters
Posted by Jim Redman <ji...@ergotech.com>.
From a position of complete ignorance, and without reading the spec. can
someone clarify for me what this means?
The part of the spec quoted here says that you can't used binary chars,
however "" seems to meet the requirement of the spec in that it
matches "the production for Char".
Regardless of whether xmlrpc should be doing the escaping, it seems to me
that I should be able to send a String that would be invalid XML by
escaping each character - the resulting string seems to be valid. This is
philosphically the same as sending new line characters as "\\n" in human
readable strings.
Is this the case or is it required that anything that may have a non-Char
in it be base64 encoded?
Jim
On 2002.02.28 16:48:25 -0700 bugzilla@apache.org wrote:
> Comments from John Wilson <tu...@wilson.co.uk>, author of the MinML parser:
>
> "
> This isn't a bug. You just can't legally have a Unicode character with
> the
> value 5 in a well formed XML document. Escaping it as  makes no
> difference.
>
> The relevant part of the spec is Section 4.1 Character and Entity
> References
> "Well-Formedness Constraint: Legal Character
> Characters referred to using character references must match the
> production
> for Char. "
>
> MinML currently and erroneously allows this - I'm in process of
> tightening
> it's checking and it will soon reject it.
> "
>
--
Jim Redman
(505) 662 5156
http://www.ergotech.com