Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RFC 2616 is dead

mnot.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–17 of 17 posts

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#11

Post by rquantz »

wpietri wrote: post #2

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

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?

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#12

Post by btgeekboy »

rquantz wrote: post #11
wpietri wrote: post #2

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

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 check…

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

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#13

Post by contingencies »

gjm11 wrote: post #9
NelsonMinar wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe their intent was not to creat new protocols.

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.

Cute!

Added to my ruby/ANSI-enabled, architecturally-oriented fortune alternative https://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup :)

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#16

Post by emmelaich »

notatoad wrote: post #10
barosl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Reminds me when I have to pronounce router the network thing vs router the woodworking tool. The former is pronounced the USA way, the latter the English way.

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#17

Post by oneeyedpigeon »

barosl wrote: post #5
wpietri wrote: post #2

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

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.

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.
Post reply on HN