At 02:54 12/02/2001 +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
>Stas told me to forward my mail to the list, since there was a large
>discussion about it. Since I now see that this seems to have been a kind
>of dispute and not an ommision I'll provide references to the standards
>below.
>
>----- Forwarded message from Marc Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----
>
>in http://perl.apache.org/guide/browserbugs.html I read:
>
> Preventing QUERY_STRING from getting corrupted because of &entity key
> names:
>
> http://my.site.com/foo.pl?foo=bar®=foobar, then some browsers will
> interpret ® as an SGML entity
>
>This claims this is a browser bug, which it isn't. Browsers are perfectly
>fine to interpret the ® as an entity when you embed this in the
>html source unquoted.
I don't think so. The browser would be right to treat ® as an entity,
not ®. If it had proper heuristics for dealing with poor HTML, it'd
detect that there is no ; in sight for the next n chars, or that reg= isn't
the start of an entity it knows about, and it would treat the & as a literal.
However, I agree that people should try their best to write proper html. If
the above url appeared in a link it should be encoded as
http://my.site.com/foo.pl?foo=bar&reg=foobar. I find that a lot of
developers don't care the least about the html they output because they
somehow despise it. Think twice: take out the html, what's left of your
site ? XHTML clearly forbids such wrong constructs (won't even parse if you
get it wrong) and that's cool. It's like use strict for HTML.
-- robin b.
In which level of metalanguage are you now speaking?
