- From: <kgeorge@tcpsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 20:19:08 -0500 (EST)
- To: Greg Marr <gregm@alum.wpi.edu>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Greg Marr wrote: > There is no need to URL-encode the ampersand. It needs to be protected from > the HTML parser, not the network layers. URL encoding it will only help if you > write your script to handle it, and isn't a general-purpose solution. Using > & instead of & will protect it from the HTML parser, which is all that is > necessary. The original poster wanted to include the ampersand as part of the value of a name=value pair. Since the ampersand is the name=value pair seperator in html, it is necessary to url encode it if you want an ampersand as part of the value. If name: x and value: hello&goodbye the value must be encoded so the ampersand is not lost and goodbye is not treated as a new argument. I believe this is what he was asking. The only thing that & is good for is for use in web pages. It can not be used for encoding a url because a) it contains the ampersand itself and b) it is translated to a "&" before the form/url is queried. If you want to have name=value&thisvalue as a name value pair, the _only_ way to accomplish this is to say name=value%26thisvalue and then decode it in your cgi program. Kyle George kgeorge@tcpsoft.com
Received on Monday, 4 January 1999 03:08:20 UTC