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 ...
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 ...
& is the character reference for "An ampersand". ¤t; is not a standard character reference and so is an error (browsers may try to perform error recovery but you should not depend on this).
index6237 Replies 5 Views 5,575 Hampster I Review: Mekar Spa index6237 Replies 13 Views 4,910 Boostergold5 I Review: Ruby's Spa index6237 Replies 16 Views 12,024 Bumble Bee Tuna I Review: hot stone spa index6237 Replies 1 Views 1,632 continentaljo I Review: Ruby’s Spa index6237 ...
12 & is "valid", though whether you want to use it is another question. If you're writing a document in XML, then & will be used to represent an ampersand. If your XML document is describing content that itself is encoded in a similar way -- e.g. HTML -- then that content could logically include an & itself.
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.