Good point!! There is similar issue around escaping in JSON for values in maps, which needs to be addressed. I guess the same mechanism could be used to escape XML tagnames as well.
Niclas On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Paul Merlin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, > > Java allow UTF-8 characters in method names. > This could lead to illegal characters in tag namesif Value Properties > accessor name is used. > > Moreover, Map keys can be something else than a String, they can be a > Number, a Date et... > > BTW, I'm not using the StAX serialization in any of my apps. > > /Paul > > > Kent Sølvsten a écrit : > > Illegal characters :-) > > Den 12/07/2015 20.27 skrev "Kent Sølvsten" <[email protected]>: > > > >> Not able to analyse from My holliday on crete. But: provided we wont > run > >> into trouble with illegal charterselskaber in XML elements i agree . I > >> Thing the default should be changed for 3.0 though. > >> Den 12/07/2015 16.58 skrev "Niclas Hedhman" <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> Gang, > >>> The StaxValueSerialization format is very verbose, and possibly only > >>> suitable with an XML browser (i.e. a regular browser with a CSS to > make it > >>> into tables) > >>> > >>> From testcase; > >>> <?xml version="1.1" > >>> > >>> > encoding="utf-8"?><object><field><name>number</name><value>42</value></field><field><name>nullString</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>emptyString</name><value></value></field><field><name>stringList</name><value><array></array></value></field><field><name>anotherNull</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>anotherListNull</name><value><null></null></value></field><field><name>anotherListEmpty</name><value><array></array></value></field><field><name>testEnum</name><value>somevalue</value></field><field><name>foo</name><value><object><field><name>_type</name><value>org.qi4j.test.value.AbstractValueCompositeSerializationTest$FooValue</value></field><field><name>bar</name><value></value></field></object></value> > >>> > >>> <snip/> > >>> > >>> I doubt anybody is using it, and my question is whether it should be > kept > >>> at all, or I should do the same as I did with JSON Maps format, where > the > >>> current format is default, and that a Options flag indicates a leaner > >>> format, where the tag name is the property name and the element value > is > >>> the value. > >>> > >>> WDYAT? > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> -- > >>> Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > >>> http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java > >>> > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
