|
|
Posted by David Dorward on 04/20/05 10:26
Richard Lynch wrote:
> But if it's going to break a billion scripts, it's probably not gonna
> happen to follow a "standard" that isn't the only game in town. XHTML is
> not ubiquitous. [shrug]
Representing & characters as & has been a requirement of SGML and XML
based languages, HTML included, since long before XHTML appeared on the
scene.
What scripts would making this change be likely to break? I have difficulty
believing it could cause problems for other then a very small proprotion of
users - unlike the change in register_globals a few years ago.
> Since there are still browsers in use that will choke on & in the URL,
> last time I checked, you're pretty much fighting for a lost cause, as far
> as I'm concerned.
We aren't talking about "in the URL", we're talking about "in the href
attribute". Browsers convert & in HTML documents (including in href
attributes) to & before they think about them being part of URLs.
Can you name any browser that gets it wrong? I stress that typing
http://www.example.com/?foo=bar&baz=baa into the address bar is not how
the issue should be tested.
--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|