278382 - xbl doesn't work anymore on this url

Status: RESOLVED INVALID

(Core :: XML, defect)

Description

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041220 Firefox/1.0+
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041220 Firefox/1.0+

That url should show richedit boxes, but that doesn't happen anymore.
Instead, I get to see a jxml parsing error in the js console:

It worked in:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041219
Firefox/1.0+ 8:19am
But it doesn't work anymore in:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.8a6) Gecko/20041220
Firefox/1.0+ 8:12am
http://bonsai.mozilla.org/cvsquery.cgi?treeid=default&module=all&branch=HEAD&branchtype=match&dir=&file=&filetype=match&who=&whotype=match&sortby=Date&hours=2&date=explicit&mindate=2004-12-19+08%3A00%3A00&maxdate=2004-12-20+08%3A00%3A00&cvsroot=%2Fcvsroot

I've managed to minimise the testcase:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<bindings xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/xbl" xbl:xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/xbl">
<binding id="richedit">  
<xbl:content><xbl:children/></xbl:content>
</binding>
</bindings>
when opening this testcase, it gives an xml parsing error in current builds.

Bug 274964 might have something to do with it?

Reproducible: Always

Comment 1

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Attachment: Testcase

I'm not entirely sure this should work, but I think it should. It did work in
older builds, so...

Comment 2

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

The problem is, it doesn't like the '<xbl:content><xbl:children/></xbl:content>'
part, seems like it.

Comment 3

[Peter Van der Beken [:peterv]]

(In reply to comment #0)
> <?xml version="1.0"?>
> <bindings xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/xbl"
xbl:xmlns="http://www.mozilla.org/xbl">

How about making the XML valid by using xmlns:xbl?

Comment 4

[Martijn Wargers (dead)]

Oops! You're totally right. 
But this used to work (for some odd reason), so I'll just have to rewrite that
stuff in order to make it work again.

Thanks. 

Comment 5

[Peter Van der Beken [:peterv]]

(In reply to comment #4)
> Oops! You're totally right. 
> But this used to work (for some odd reason)

We used to accept a lot of invalid XML because of missing wellformdness checks.
Bug 274964 fixed that and it's a good thing, even though it often looks like a
regression ;-).

Comment 6

[Peter Van der Beken [:peterv]]

(In reply to comment #5)
> Bug 274964 fixed that

Actually, make that bug 192139.