URLs vs. XHTML

February 17, 2003 11AM PST

After linking a few items on Amazon.com, my XHTML has been broken for who–knows–how–long. It popped up as I redesigned, but I didn’t bother investigating. Chalk one up to silly validation rules and laziness.


Today however, thanks to a helpful ALA post, I’m back to W3C–coated goodness.

The problem as I see it is such: XHTML doesn’t like ampersands on their own. Period. You must use the & code in every spot you need a regular ampersand, aside from standard use in HTML character/escape codes. You’re linking to a page that contains a few query–string arguments, delimited by ampersands? Tough. Convert ’em.

This seems a bit severe to me, but I’ve been willing to play with the W3 so far, so a bit of tweaking in Blue Spark (which, incidentally, has its own problems with ampersands that I thought I fixed but still it chooses to destroy character codes so I’m getting a bit frustrated and hope no one else is using it for much other than playing yet) and I’m back in the saddle.

Notes to self: graphics–lite alternative, clearer link to archives, and throw in the .rdf since it’s being generated anyway — some readers might want it.

Addendum to self: site is busted in Mozilla/NS. 3 out of 10 for style. See me in my office after class.