- From: <Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 02:25:46 -0400 (EDT)
- To: www-validator@w3.org
On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Lloyd Wood wrote: > On Wed, 9 Jun 1999, Brian Gilkison wrote: - - > > The ampersand character ("&") is what is generating your error, since the > > validator is assuming what follows to be an entity reference. > > Since it isn't an entity reference, it's safe to assume that the > validator is in the wrong. Since suspected validator errors regularly turn out to be errors correctly reported by validators, it's safe to assume that the validator is correct here too. &limit _is_ an entity reference, by SGML rules. It happens to be undefined in the current version of HTML (or, what really matters to a validator, in the version against which you're validating), a validator must report an error. On the practical side, consider what happens if some future version of HTML defines &limit, which might well happen. Such things _have_ happened. And on the other hand, there are browsers which erroneously interpret undefined entities if the names begin with a defined name; see reason #3 at http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/reasons.html > The effect of widespread use of tilde (~) and ampersand (&) on URLs > sans escapement is a lost cause as far as validation is concerned. The necessity of "escaping" ampersands in attribute values has _gained_ and is gaining importance. The more entities there are, the greater the risk of having &something processed in a way you really did not mean. The tilde never was an issue in validation. Validators do not check URLs in any way, since to them, a URL is just CDATA. (That said, despite the fact that RFC 2396 relaxed the encoding requirements, it still is, as it always was, safest to encode ~ in a URL as %7e. In particular, trying to use the tilde in printed media is a lost cause, and who can predict which URLs get printed?) -- Yucca, http://www.hut.fi/u/jkorpela/ or http://yucca.hut.fi/yucca.html
Received on Thursday, 10 June 1999 04:15:33 UTC