On 4/17/07, Dave Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Ok, I see now. But it applies to XHTML, not standard HTML > > We recommend that HTTP server implementors, and in particular, CGI > implementors support the use of ";" in place of "&" to save authors the > trouble of escaping "&" characters in this manner."
I understand this whole debate on escaping ampersands but it's almost too late to even worry about them. ?a=1&b=2 has been in use way before I got into programming. Now that it's in such wide use, this standard should be reversed. & should be reconsidered for xml and not the other way around. I also understand that XML was here before the Internet, it just never caught on until 20+ years later. Not my fault but in the world of the Internet it does make things a real pain in the ass. And since the Internet is bigger then XML, its the one who should part ways with Ampersands!!! So you should make use of ";" in place of "&" in your URLs??? Not that I care but, from an SEO standpoint who has any proof this holds up? I don't. I know putting & in my URLs works, while not the best, having variables in your URLs in this manor, it does work. Casey ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 The most significant release in over 10 years. Upgrade & see new features. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJR Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:275666 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
