Closed
Bug 860180
Opened 11 years ago
Closed 11 years ago
U+30D8 causes XML error in UTF-16BE
Categories
(Core :: DOM: Core & HTML, defect)
Tracking
()
RESOLVED
FIXED
mozilla23
People
(Reporter: ryan.richards, Assigned: emk)
References
Details
(Keywords: regression, Whiteboard: [qa-])
Attachments
(3 files, 1 obsolete file)
18 bytes,
application/xhtml+xml
|
Details | |
7.31 KB,
patch
|
hsivonen
:
review+
bajaj
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
bajaj
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
4.75 KB,
patch
|
hsivonen
:
review+
bajaj
:
approval-mozilla-aurora+
bajaj
:
approval-mozilla-beta+
|
Details | Diff | Splinter Review |
User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 Build ID: 20130326150557 Steps to reproduce: After upgrading to version 20 I navigated to http://γ’γγ‘γ€γγ .com/ Actual results: I received an XML Parsing Error: not well-formed Expected results: The document is well formed and should have displayed.
Comment 1•11 years ago
|
||
Last good nightly: 2012-11-08 First bad nightly: 2012-11-09 Pushlog: http://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/pushloghtml?fromchange=36e99ea02c05&tochange=90cea19e27e2 bug 801402 is most likely the culprit here. I bisect this if required
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
status-firefox20:
--- → affected
status-firefox21:
--- → affected
status-firefox22:
--- → affected
tracking-firefox21:
--- → ?
tracking-firefox22:
--- → ?
tracking-firefox23:
--- → ?
Component: Untriaged → DOM
Ever confirmed: true
Flags: needinfo?(VYV03354)
Keywords: regression
Product: Firefox → Core
Assignee | ||
Comment 2•11 years ago
|
||
Similar to 844007 which is supposed to be fixed in Firefox 20. However the page encoding is actually utf-16 (but big endian) here...
Flags: needinfo?(VYV03354)
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #735628 -
Attachment mime type: text/plain → application/xhtml+xml
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•11 years ago
|
||
30
Summary: U+30DB causes XML error in UTF-16BE → U+30D8 causes XML error in UTF-16BE
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•11 years ago
|
||
Checking other characters, looks like every U+nnD8 to U+nnDF character causes the error.
Comment 5•11 years ago
|
||
Tracking and passing this on to :emk as this is a regression from 801402. Will be very helpful to have a patch uplifted before Beta 3/Beta 4 goes to build.
Updated•11 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → VYV03354
status-firefox23:
--- → affected
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•11 years ago
|
||
This is because the "UTF-16" label no longer represents a sniffing decoder. It is an alias of "UTF-16LE" now. I'm working on a fix.
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•11 years ago
|
||
This patch will basically undo bug 335531. The Encoding Standard intentionally "misuses" the UTF-16 label.
Attachment #736323 -
Flags: review?(hsivonen)
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•11 years ago
|
||
https://tbpl.mozilla.org/?tree=Try&rev=bca208240bda
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•11 years ago
|
||
Attachment #736501 -
Flags: review?(hsivonen)
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #736323 -
Flags: review?(hsivonen) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•11 years ago
|
||
Forgot to call revokeObjectURL().
Attachment #736501 -
Attachment is obsolete: true
Attachment #736501 -
Flags: review?(hsivonen)
Attachment #737026 -
Flags: review?(hsivonen)
Reporter | ||
Comment 11•11 years ago
|
||
Just a bit of a follow up to the intial report, U+30D7,γ, when swapped to D730 is ν°, a valid code point. U+30D8,γ, when swapped to D830 is an invalid code point. U+30D7 displays properly as γ while U+30D8 errors out.
Comment 12•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 737026 [details] [diff] [review] Regression tests, v2 Did we establish somewhere that Web compat prevents treating bogus labeling as fatal? Did that get written up in a spec somewhere?
Attachment #737026 -
Flags: review?(hsivonen) → review+
Assignee | ||
Comment 13•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Henri Sivonen (:hsivonen) from comment #12) > Comment on attachment 737026 [details] [diff] [review] > Regression tests, v2 > > Did we establish somewhere that Web compat prevents treating bogus labeling > as fatal? Did that get written up in a spec somewhere? We need a self-contained encoding sniffing algorithm for XML because the XML spec assumes that the "UTF-16" can represent both endians.
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/e58f99cad251 https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5d40dce142e0
Assignee | ||
Updated•11 years ago
|
Flags: in-testsuite+
Comment 15•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/e58f99cad251 https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/5d40dce142e0
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 11 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Target Milestone: --- → mozilla23
Comment 16•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #14) > https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/e58f99cad251 > https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/5d40dce142e0 Can you please request nomination for aurora/beta here ? Beta 4 which goes to build tomorrow will be the last opportunity to land speculative low risk fixes.
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 736323 [details] [diff] [review] Prefer UTF-16BE/LE to UTF-16 [Approval Request Comment] Bug caused by (feature/regressing bug #): bug 801402 User impact if declined: Some websites will not be displayed at all. Testing completed (on m-c, etc.): on m-c in a few days. Risk to taking this patch (and alternatives if risky): low String or IDL/UUID changes made by this patch: none
Attachment #736323 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #736323 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 737026 [details] [diff] [review] Regression tests, v2 [Approval Request Comment] See above.
Attachment #737026 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #737026 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Comment 19•11 years ago
|
||
Comment on attachment 736323 [details] [diff] [review] Prefer UTF-16BE/LE to UTF-16 The patch is low risk and an Fx20 regression which does not display a few websites. Please make sure to land on mozilla-beta asap, as we are going to build today with Fx21 beta 4.
Attachment #736323 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #736323 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #736323 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #736323 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Updated•11 years ago
|
Attachment #737026 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta?
Attachment #737026 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-beta+
Attachment #737026 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora?
Attachment #737026 -
Flags: approval-mozilla-aurora+
Comment 20•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Ryan Richards from comment #0) > Created attachment 735628 [details] > U+30D8 in a minimal XML file > > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 > Build ID: 20130326150557 > > Steps to reproduce: > > After upgrading to version 20 I navigated to http://γ’γγ‘γ€γγ .com/ > > > Actual results: > > I received an XML Parsing Error: not well-formed > > > Expected results: > > The document is well formed and should have displayed. Thanks for the report ! Can you try our latest nightly or aurora when the patch is landed, to confirm the issue is fixed for you ? Thanks
Assignee | ||
Comment 21•11 years ago
|
||
Could you also approve attachment 738720 [details] [diff] [review]? Otherwise this patch will cause permaorange on Thundirbird tinderboxes. If not, I'll withdraw requesting beta approval.
Comment 22•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #21) > Could you also approve attachment 738720 [details] [diff] [review]? > Otherwise this patch will cause permaorange on Thundirbird tinderboxes. > If not, I'll withdraw requesting beta approval. Who would be able to review this ?
Assignee | ||
Comment 23•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #22) > (In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #21) > > Could you also approve attachment 738720 [details] [diff] [review]? > > Otherwise this patch will cause permaorange on Thundirbird tinderboxes. > > If not, I'll withdraw requesting beta approval. > > Who would be able to review this ? It's already reviewed by Simon and even landed (as I wrote in the approval request).
Comment 24•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #23) > (In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #22) > > (In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #21) > > > Could you also approve attachment 738720 [details] [diff] [review]? > > > Otherwise this patch will cause permaorange on Thundirbird tinderboxes. > > > If not, I'll withdraw requesting beta approval. > > > > Who would be able to review this ? > > It's already reviewed by Simon and even landed (as I wrote in the approval > request). I was just getting to 863025, its approved now :)
Comment 25•11 years ago
|
||
https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/e36ec18f4854 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-aurora/rev/940312febd4b https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/a1b7febaccf0 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/8df81abcb329
Reporter | ||
Comment 26•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to bhavana bajaj [:bajaj] from comment #20) > (In reply to Ryan Richards from comment #0) > > Created attachment 735628 [details] > > U+30D8 in a minimal XML file > > > > User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.0; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0 > > Build ID: 20130326150557 > > > > Steps to reproduce: > > > > After upgrading to version 20 I navigated to http://γ’γγ‘γ€γγ .com/ > > > > > > Actual results: > > > > I received an XML Parsing Error: not well-formed > > > > > > Expected results: > > > > The document is well formed and should have displayed. > > Thanks for the report ! Can you try our latest nightly or aurora when the > patch is landed, to confirm the issue is fixed for you ? Thanks Open my site in Nightly, everything is working.
Comment 27•11 years ago
|
||
Are there any user facing regression risks which QA should look at not covered by existing tests?
Flags: needinfo?(VYV03354)
Comment 29•11 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Masatoshi Kimura [:emk] from comment #28) > Unlikely, hence low risk. Okay, thanks Masatoshi. I just wanted to confirm before flagging this [qa-].
Whiteboard: [qa-]
Updated•5 years ago
|
Component: DOM → DOM: Core & HTML
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•