RFC 2616 is dead (opens in new tab)

(mnot.net)

179 pointsfelixrabe11y ago15 comments

15 comments

I had a faint hope that they'd fix "referer". Alas, no: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-5.5.2

I have a proposal in place to replace the single referrer with an array of all preceding referrers, to track through multiple redirects, etc. The header name would be "referer's"

wolf550e11y ago

I don't know what's worse: the privacy implications, the bandwidth implications or using the apostrophe to mean "here comes an s". Nice trolling.

NelsonMinar11y ago

I believe their intent was not to creat new protocols.

gjm1111y ago

Note for readers who may not have noticed: the above is a rather clever joke. See, e.g., http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/10893/what-did-ken-t... for background.

1 more reply

barosl11y ago

So true. I'm occasionally confused on which spelling to use. My rule of thumb is using "referrer" for almost all place including variable names, except for the situation when I have to manipulate the headers directly.

notatoad11y ago

i've finally got my brain wrapped around to believing that referer is the correct spelling within the context of HTTP. Any time i need to talk about a referer, it's spelled referer. if it's spelled referrer, it must mean something else.

1 more reply

oneeyedpigeon11y ago

If I've learnt anything in programming, it's that inconsistent naming just adds useless complexity. At some point, you'll find yourself having to map from 'referrer' to 'referer'; that's entirely wasted effort. Wherever possible, name everything (variables, array indices, filenames, database fields, HTML input names) exactly the same.

steveklabnik11y ago

That would be backwards incompatible.

rquantz11y ago

Presumably any such fix would have to start with specifying both a referer and a referrer header, so that legacy clients wouldn't freak out. That said, it's humbling to think that because someone made a mistake in, what, 1991? We still have to go around spelling referrer wrong all the time, and even include the incorrect spelling in new specs.

So, all you standards proliferators out there: used the goddam spell checker, all right?

btgeekboy11y ago

For what it's worth, Wikipedia notes:

"[D]ocument co-author Roy Fielding has remarked that neither 'referrer' nor the misspelling 'referer' were recognized by the standard Unix spell checker of the period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer

ehPReth11y ago

I hope they strip out "referers" or "referrers" in the future, but somehow I doubt that will happen

contingencies11y ago

I would go a step further and say the IETF is dead ... so many of the new protocols are basically just after-the-fact corporate interests fronting up and publishing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

15 comments

wpietri11y ago

I had a faint hope that they'd fix "referer". Alas, no: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-5.5.2

josai11y ago

I have a proposal in place to replace the single referrer with an array of all preceding referrers, to track through multiple redirects, etc. The header name would be "referer's"

wolf550e11y ago

I don't know what's worse: the privacy implications, the bandwidth implications or using the apostrophe to mean "here comes an s". Nice trolling.

NelsonMinar11y ago

I believe their intent was not to creat new protocols.

gjm1111y ago

Note for readers who may not have noticed: the above is a rather clever joke. See, e.g., http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/10893/what-did-ken-t... for background.

1 more reply

barosl11y ago

notatoad11y ago

1 more reply

oneeyedpigeon11y ago

steveklabnik11y ago

That would be backwards incompatible.

rquantz11y ago

So, all you standards proliferators out there: used the goddam spell checker, all right?

btgeekboy11y ago

For what it's worth, Wikipedia notes:

"[D]ocument co-author Roy Fielding has remarked that neither 'referrer' nor the misspelling 'referer' were recognized by the standard Unix spell checker of the period."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer

ehPReth11y ago

I hope they strip out "referers" or "referrers" in the future, but somehow I doubt that will happen

contingencies11y ago

I would go a step further and say the IETF is dead ... so many of the new protocols are basically just after-the-fact corporate interests fronting up and publishing.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse