Msg#: 4547916 posted 12:36 am on Feb 23, 2013 (gmt 0)
In all html (also in xhtml5) except for HTML5 you *have* to encode a content &. Standards ...
HTML5 allows the author to write worse code than it needs to allow. So you can get away with it in that standard provided the characters following the & do not look like an htmlentity - and since HTML5 is now a "living" standard: you do not know what html entities they will invent in the future. So you cannot guarantee that in the future it will not start to "look like" an htmlentity.
A useless thing for lazy authors IMHO. - But HTML5 is stuffed with that kind of thing.
So not encoding every content & in an html document as & is a mistake IMHO - of equal proportion to using < or > in the content that's not encoded as < or > .
Msg#: 4547916 posted 12:29 am on Feb 24, 2013 (gmt 0)
insert a copyright sign, that's missing the semicolon ?
Matter of fact, that element of browser helpfulness has annoyed me for a long time. Is the trailing semicolon required or isn't it? If it isn't required, why use it? If it is required-- which makes far more sense because how else would you know when the entity is finished?-- then for pity's sake require it already :)
Msg#: 4547916 posted 10:42 pm on Feb 26, 2013 (gmt 0)
Your guess is actually quite right.
In HTML, you are supposed to (exceptions aside) to encode any & as & . SO in a <a href=""> or so your encoding works as the rbowser knows it's reading html and will decode the & to & and then use it.
In your address bar: there's no html, so no decoding of htmlentities.