On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:04:35 +0200 Sebastian Günther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mattias Gaertner schrieb: > >> > >>While you are thinking about it, can you give an opinion on how to fix > >>lazarus bug 902: > >http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mantis/view.php?id=902 > > > > > > Yes, it is the same. > > > > I would expect, that xmlwriter should raise an exception. > > I have a small suggestion, or better, a solution: > > First, yes, the xmlwriter should check names for validity. > > Second: Adding escaping to xmlcfg. Whenever a part of a path violates > the XML specs, this part gets escaped. I suggest to use the underscore > character as escaping char. Existing underscores in names gets doubled, > and invalid characters will be transformed to underscore plus hex code. > > As I don't want to break too many existing xmlcfg files, the use of > escaping should be indicated by a leading underscore in the name, as I > think this case is quite seldom. (hardly any currently existing xmlcfg > files will use an underscore as first character in any name, I think). > > Any comments? The systems sounds useful. Just one question: Why should xmlcfg allow, what xml does not? I mean, I see the gain to allow numbers as identifiers, but OTOH a newbie could be mislead, that his paths are the xml paths (e.g. '1' vs '_1'). When the configs are read by other applications the paths are different. Maybe we can add a boolean property to TXMLConfig, whether to raise an exception or to automatically convert illegal paths? Then again, what should be the default for the property? Mattias _________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
