that may be true, but here are two websites that don't follow the standard
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
http://news.com.com/
http://www.google.com/
that's three of the first four websites i tried (slashdot did the right thing.)
to me, it's irrevalent what the standard says if a good percentage of important
websites don't work.
- erik
On Sat Jul 8 14:40:24 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>
> > i took a hard look at the w3c html 4.01 specs. accordingly a uri is
> > considerd a cname within html. a cname can contain entities unless it
> > is a script or a style. thus a uri in a href may contain entities.
> > in fact, they do recommend
> > <a href="http://example.com?x=1&y=2";>
> > be encoded
> > <a href="http://example.com?x=y&y=2";>
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/appendix/notes.html#non-ascii-chars ยง
> > B.2.2.) this isn't what i've seen in practice, though.
>
>
> You're not looking hard enough, you'll find & wherever it is used in my
> websites, and anyone else that writes valid HTML. You can find pleny of such
> websites after browsing the W3 HTML validator mailing list archives =)
>
> btw. it is more than a recommendation, an unescaped "&" renders your html
> invalid.
>
> Finding invalid HTML on the web, however, is all too easy try :
> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/
> http://www.bell-labs.com/ - which even has invalid utf8 !
