Shannon -jj Behrens wrote:
> Nonetheless, using & in URLs *in the source* is correct. You can
> verify this by creating an HTML page and validating it using the W3C
> HTML validator.
I'm amazed that the HTML validator feels this way and even
more amazed that the actual pages on the W3C are written
this way. I'm amazed because I've been building webpages
since '94 and I've never seen it done that way until I
started using Freetrade.
Now maybe the W3C, being the gods that they are, rewrote
the way it should be done, but that's not the way most of
the world does it. I checked around to make sure I hadn't
lost my mind and found pages like http://www.yahoo.com/,
http://www.working-dogs.com/freetrade/, and
http://www.php.net/downloads.php that do it "the other" way.
By no means am I saying W3C is "wrong" but they sure are
"different".
--
Paul Chamberlain, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Site: http://www.working-dogs.com/freetrade/
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
