* Lars Eilebrecht wrote: > According to André Malo: > >> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> replacing "&" with "&" in an URL is not a good idea. >> >> sorry, but it is. Not using & is wrong. >> See: <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#h-B.2.2> > > Err ... but the links don't work then. (?)
Sure. Alan Flavell has made some test and written a lot of stuff about this topic: <http://ppewww.ph.gla.ac.uk/~flavell/www/formgetbyurl.html#htmlify> Conclusion: & in URLs (in HTML, i.e. within the href attribute) should always be encoded as &, otherwise the browsers may fail (wide spread example: /foo?blah=1©=2 may be resolved to /foo?blah=1©=2, which is really not desired). Since it's HTML, the browser will resolve the & correctly to & (already at parse time). I don't know any webbrowser that does it wrong. However, I guess, in xhtml it's even a must. nd -- die (eval q-qq[Just Another Perl Hacker ] ;-) # André Malo, <http://www.perlig.de/> #
