134963 - XML elment name in gb18030 surrogate character doesn't work

Status: VERIFIED INVALID

(Core :: Internationalization, defect)

Description

[Yuying Long]

Build: 04-02 trunk build on WinXP-SimpChinese

XML elment name in gb18030 surrogate characters doesn't work, although it works
with the gb18030 surrogate characters contents of rugular element names.

Comment 1

[Yuying Long]

Attachment: doesn't work test page

Comment 2

[Yuying Long]

Attachment: a worked test case

This test page works with gb18030 surrogate characters content but not in
element delaration

Comment 3

[Roy Yokoyama]

->shanjian

Comment 4

[Yuying Long]

Attachment: Another not working test page

Comment 5

[Frank Tang]

Can you create test cases with surrogate in UTF-8 ?

Comment 6

[Frank Tang]

ok, here is what happen
in XML 1.0 see http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006
a well-formed xml is defined as follow
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#sec-well-formed
>[1]    document    ::=    prolog element Misc*

and if you look at the definitation of element
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-element
>[39]    element    ::=    EmptyElemTag | STag content ETag
and if you look at the definitation of STag

http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-STag
>[40]    STag    ::=    '<' Name (S Attribute)* S? '>' [WFC: Unique Att Spec]
and look at the definitation of Name
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-Name

>[5]    Name    ::=    (Letter | '_' | ':') (NameChar)*
and you look at NameChar
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-NameChar
>[4]    NameChar    ::=    Letter | Digit | '.' | '-' | '_' | ':' |
CombiningChar | Extender 

and look at Letter
http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-xml-20001006#NT-Letter
>[84]    Letter    ::=    BaseChar | Ideographic


you will see both Unicode ideograph extension A (U+3400-U+4dff) and Extension B
(in surrogate) are not listed for BaseChar nor Ideographic. Therefore, those
characters cannot be used as Name in XML 1.0

We should talk to XML author about this issue and maybe they will change it for
later version of XML

but untill then, this is an invalid bug. 

Comment 7

[Frank Tang]

cc [e-mail]

Comment 8

[Yuying Long]

Mark as verified not a mozilla problem according to Frank's comment.