[icedtea-web] RFC: PR766 javaws fails to parse an <argument> node that contains CDATA

[Deepak Bhole]

* Omair Majid <omajid at redhat.com> [2011-09-21 16:49]:
> On 09/19/2011 01:44 PM, Omair Majid wrote:
> >On 09/19/2011 01:01 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> >>* Omair Majid<omajid at redhat.com> [2011-09-16 18:03]:
...
...
> >If you mean the parser in icedtea-web chokes on CDATA sections (or
> >handles these CDATA sections differently) - as shown in the test results
> >- then yes, that might be a problem. As stated above I intend to write a
> >patch with additional tests for this. As an additional precaution, I
> >would like to avoid backporting this patch to any of the release branches.
> >
> 
> So I spent some time looking into it and it turns out that the
> version of NanoXML that we use does not support mixed content [1] -
> so it's not a problem with using CDATA sections, it's a problem with
> intermixing text and elements.
> 
> The good news is that JNLP files should not contain mixed content.
> Nothing the Oracle's docs [2] suggests that mixed content can occur
> in JNLP files. Perhaps another thing to consider is that we have not
> seen any bugs filed about problems in jnlp files caused by mixed
> content. So this should not occur in practice.
> 
> Of course, I could implement this, but it turns out that
> NanoXML/Lite (which is what was embedded in netx) does not support
> that pretty much by design [3]. NanoXML/Java does support that [3],
> but I am hesitant to swap out our parser like this. And if I were
> swapping out the parser, I would rather use a parser meant to handle
> malformed XML documents - like tagsoup [4] - along with a
> well-tested XML parser.
> 
> In fact, after considering the matter, I would like push just the
> two patches I posted earlier in this thread and close the bug.
> 
> Any thoughts or comments?
> 

Sorry if I'm missing something, but don't we still need a patch to
JNLPMatcher to make it not fail when presented with CDATA?

Cheers,
Deepak