Posted by Jochem Maas on 04/20/05 21:37

David Dorward wrote:
> 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.

you might be able to put this func to use somewhere:

function properAmpersands($url)
{
return preg_replace("/(&)(?!amp;)/","&",(string)$url);
}

>
> 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.
>

[Back to original message]