.. not html validated? I was just wondering this. It'd cost something like 5$ i guess, at least for the homepage.![]()
.. not html validated? I was just wondering this. It'd cost something like 5$ i guess, at least for the homepage.![]()
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
Oh, that's interesting. Didn't think about that. But then, why do they leave the " in the href all of the <a> tags for example? Would work the same, without having those extra chars.
Unless the URL has a non URL-encoded space, in this case only everything before the space is linked to. Compare this:
With this:HTML Code:<a href=http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=hi man>LINK</a>
The percent-encoding for an space is %20. By enclosing them between quotes, they save at least one byte for every URL with an space on it, Of course, two bytes are wasted for every search result that doesn't. I'd check if the search results page automatically chooses between using quote marks or not but I'm happy with ScroogleHTML Code:<a href="http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=hi man">LINK</a>![]()
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
I think that's only when you're replacing an space in a query string. This:
Would work, but this:Code:http://www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/nbbw.cgi?Gw=hi+man
Wouldn't. But if you replace the +'s with spaces in the second link, you'll be able to download the PDF.Code:http://golf.sportec.es/reglas/REGLAS+2004-2008+_internet_Regla+20.pdf
"I just remembered something that happened a long time ago."
That's right, + it's the separator and stands for the space (no mistery here, any get form will behave this way) in query strings. Those links are the only ones I can think google would use (for example see the images links in the homepage in anniversaries). Beside that, the use of quotation marks seems to be useless for the purpose of just-display-my-content. In fact, as you can see everything is url encoded in a proper way before being displayed.![]()
Bookmarks