On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 03:47 +0000, Richard Neill wrote: > Olivier Thereaux wrote: > > Checking HTTP compliance is a good idea, but it's completely out of the > > scope of the markup validator. > > Yes, that is what I was suggesting. The reason for this, is that the > validator lays such great stress on the importance of using '&' > instead of '&' in links, and so it only seems natural to do so in an > HTTP header (which is after all, "just a form of link"). > > I agree that it's out of scope, but it would be really useful, and this > must be a common error. Alas, it could not usually be flagged as an error by an "HTTP compliance checker" either. I don't think there's anything wrong in general with placing constructs like "&" in certain parts of URIs, which is what these HTTP header values are. For example query strings. The probability of an error is relatively high though, but issuing a warning (or issuing nothing at all) is the best thing such a checker could do.Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 07:24:48 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 1 October 2009 14:48:55 GMT