RFC 2616 is dead

#1

Post by felixrabe » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 12:05 PM UTC

RFC 2616 is dead
mnot.net

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#2

Post by wpietri » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 3:33 PM UTC

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

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#3

Post by NelsonMinar » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 3:39 PM UTC

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

I believe their intent was not to creat new protocols.

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#4

Post by steveklabnik » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 3:45 PM UTC

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

That would be backwards incompatible.

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#5

Post by barosl » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 5:10 PM UTC

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.

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#6

Post by ehPReth » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 5:33 PM UTC

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

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

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#7

Post by josai » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 6:14 PM UTC

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

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"

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#8

Post by wolf550e » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 7:10 PM UTC

josai wrote: post #7

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

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"

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.

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#9

Post by gjm11 » Sat, Jun 07, 2014, 9:02 PM UTC

NelsonMinar wrote: post #3

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

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.

Re: RFC 2616 is dead

#10

Post by notatoad » Sun, Jun 08, 2014, 1:54 AM UTC

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.

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.