Richard Lynch wrote: > But if it's going to break a billion scripts, it's probably not gonna > happen to follow a "standard" that isn't the only game in town. XHTML is > not ubiquitous. [shrug] Representing & characters as & has been a requirement of SGML and XML based languages, HTML included, since long before XHTML appeared on the scene. What scripts would making this change be likely to break? I have difficulty believing it could cause problems for other then a very small proprotion of users - unlike the change in register_globals a few years ago. > Since there are still browsers in use that will choke on & in the URL, > last time I checked, you're pretty much fighting for a lost cause, as far > as I'm concerned. We aren't talking about "in the URL", we're talking about "in the href attribute". Browsers convert & in HTML documents (including in href attributes) to & before they think about them being part of URLs. Can you name any browser that gets it wrong? I stress that typing http://www.example.com/?foo=bar&baz=baa into the address bar is not how the issue should be tested. -- David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/> Home is where the ~/.bashrc is -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
