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

Re: On ampersands.

From: Shane P. McCarron <shane@aptest.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 22:25:35 -0500
Message-ID: <3963FC2F.F14ED1A2@aptest.com>
To: Paul McGarry <paulm@opentec.com.au>
CC: Gerald Oskoboiny <gerald@w3.org>, www-validator@w3.org


Paul McGarry wrote:
> 
> 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.

Because in general the HTML 4.01 spec sucks.  

Seriously, its conformance indications leave a lot to be desired.

This is not an HTML 4.01 issue - it is an SGML issue.  And SGML requires
that entities be terminated with a semi-colon.
--
Shane P. McCarron                  phone: +1 763 786-8160
ApTest                               fax: +1 763 786-8180
                                  mobile: +1 612 799-6942
                                  e-mail: shane@aptest.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 July 2000 23:26:40 GMT

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