In HTML5, they are equivalent in that example. Traditionally, in HTML, only & was correct — but as with so many things, web developers blithely ignored this inconvenient rule and wrote bare ampersands everywhere. For their part, browsers just "did the right thing" and interpreted these ampersands as ampersands.
HTML5 standardized this behavior, so now & is allowed by itself as long as ... & is the proper way to escape the ampersand in an HTML context...where is your source coming from? and what's the destination? It may be better to do this server-side for example.
amp email example, Both are character references and refer to the same character (AMPERSAND, U+0026). & is a named or entity character reference and & is a numerical character reference. & or & what should be used for & (ampersand) if we are using ... What is & used for Asked 14 years, 2 months ago Modified 2 years, 8 months ago Viewed 1.1m times Encoding & as & under all circumstances, for me, is an easier rule to live by, reducing the likelihood of errors and failures. Compare the following: which is easier?
amp email example, Which is easier to bugger up? Methodology 1 Write some content which includes ampersand characters. Encode them all. Methodology 2 (with a grain of salt, please ;) ) The only way that the & should be showing on the page is if you're double encoding the ampersand character (so the source of the page would be showing &). This could be caused by either storing the character already HTML encoded or you're using <%: (which HTML encodes everything for you automatically) instead of <%= in your View. Ampersand is being HTML Encoded as &.
