[whatwg] several messages

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Wed Nov 7 07:27:15 PST 2007

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Geoffrey Sneddon wrote:
> >
> > I think it's way better to stay consistent. Especially as the feature 
> > affects the Referer (sic) header.
> I too think Anne is right here — there are enough things that are 
> inconsistent in the web already. Don't add another thing that requires 
> me to think. I'll just make mistakes. A markup language should not 
> require me to think — it should reflect logical structure. Importantly, 
> outwith the structure, logic dictates contextual consistency (even if 
> that goes against being consistent with other contexts).

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Charles wrote:
> This may be one of those "never been done, so can never happen" things, 
> but couldn't the spec as easily support both?
> It seems a bit silly that stuff should have to be spelled wrong to work.

On Tue, 6 Nov 2007, Darin Adler wrote:
> I'm really sorry to be diving into a trivial debate like this, but in 
> our work on the Safari browser we've always treated the HTTP header 
> field with the name "Referer" as the "referrer header field" and 
> considered the misspelling part of the HTTP protocol, not to be 
> propagated into other contexts.
> And as far as I can tell, standards other than HTTP have taken this tack 
> too. For example, the document you can access from JavaScript has a 
> "referrer" property, without the misspelling.
> I don't think that spelling the attribute "noreferer" is consistent. It 
> should be "noreferrer".

Good point, I hadn't considered the DOM attribute. I'll switch to 

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list