string_agg vs. for xml, re: unicode

[Isaac]

Maybe I am just looking right at it and not seeing it or something, but I'm struggling to find documentation that proves my hypothesis that string_agg overcomes the problem with for_xml giving a serialization error when it comes to 'illegal' unicode characters.

I got the error in an old proc that used for xml to stuff some things together........I solved the problem (eliminated the error on the same data) by using string_agg.

But I am searching for documentation that explicitly confirms something along these lines. ??

 

[Minty]

Does this help?

Should I Replace My FOR XML PATH String Merges with String_agg? - SQLRx

If you are using SQL Server 2017 and developing new code, you should consider using the new String_agg function.

www.sqlrx.com

 

[Isaac]

No, it's similar to many articles I read prior to my OP. It doens't specifically mention anything about unicode, encoding, etc.

 

[Isaac]

Maybe if I knew XML more, I would inherently understand why a function designed specifically for XML was unable to handle >ASCI unicode's