W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-validator@w3.org > July 2000

Re: On ampersands.

From: Paul McGarry <paulm@opentec.com.au>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:23:17 -0400 (EDT)
To: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@w3.org>
Cc: www-validator@w3.org
Message-id: <3963D375.3C1EAE75@opentec.com.au>
Gerald Oskoboiny wrote:

> > I've been trying to determine whether unentified ampersands really
> > are invalid in attributes in html 4. I've come to the conclusion
> > that it isn't invalid, just heavily frowned upon.
> 
> No, it really is invalid.

I'm going in circles here, that's what I originally thought.

If it really is invalid, why does the html 4.01 spec use the word
'should':
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/charset.html#h-5.3.2
which has a different meaning to 'must' if I understand things 
correctly.

Thanks for replying, you guys have probably covered this over
and over again.

-- 
Paul McGarry            mailto:paulm@opentec.com.au 
Systems Integrator      http://www.opentec.com.au 
Opentec Pty Ltd         http://www.iebusiness.com.au
6 Lyon Park Road        Phone: (02) 9878 1744 
North Ryde NSW 2113     Fax:   (02) 9878 1755
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2000 23:08:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 April 2012 12:13:54 GMT