[whatwg] several messages
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
> "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