748 2004-05-27 14:16:49 +0000 & in URLs not parsed correctly with GET requests 2006-10-31 01:41:52 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified Validator check 0.7.1 All All RESOLVED INVALID http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://photo.hashproject.com/aleX/?page=2&dp=kaf/ P2 trivial --- 1 hash link www-validator-cvs oldest_to_newest 1951 0 hash 2004-05-27 14:16:49 +0000 If I want to check my website via the http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://photo.hashproject.com/aleX/? page=2&dp=kaf/ URL, the URL which is actually parsed is http://photo.hashproject.com/aleX/? page=2. I tried using & instead of & in the URL and the problem still persists. If I submit the URL with the form on the site (which uses POST), there are no problems. It is not a big of a problem, but you might be interested. 1952 1 david 2004-05-27 14:27:46 +0000 & has special meaning in URIs, as it does in HTML. However, they should be url encoded, not converted to HTML entities. The correct representation of & in a URI (when not being used as a field seperator in a query string) is %26. Browsers convert this automatically when a form is submitted. 7814 2 timrutter 2006-01-13 10:49:35 +0000 This is still a problem. e.g. While validating a page and you type:- http://foo.bar.org/?value1=somestring&value2=someotherstring Into the "Address:" input. It goes to:- http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ffoo.bar.org%2F%3Fvalue1%3Dsomestring%26value2%3Dsomeotherstring This does not work and it should. You have to type:- http://foo.bar.org/?value1=somestring&value2=someotherstring Into the "address:" input. Which goes to. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Ffoo.bar.org%2F%3Fvalue1%3Dsomestring%26amp%3Bvalue2%3Dsomeotherstring When on the front page to the validator and you type in a URL to check it first HTML encodes the URL and then URLencodes it. URLs should only be URL encoded. so what is in the "Address:" input is the same as what you would enter into a browsers Address bar and not what would be in the html source. 12675 3 ot 2006-10-31 01:41:52 +0000 No idea why this has been reopened (nor do I, honestly, understand comment #2).