W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg-old@w3.org > May to August 1996

Re: Is referer spelled wrong?

From: <hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 96 12:26:59 -0400
Message-Id: <9607161627.AA06407@Etna.ai.mit.edu>
To: Erik Aronesty <earonesty@montgomery.com>, http-wg%cuckoo.hpl.hp.com@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: hallam@etna.ai.mit.edu
X-Mailing-List: <http-wg@cuckoo.hpl.hp.com> archive/latest/1135

Referer is only spelt "wrong" if one insists on petit borgeois
notions of spelling-correctness. This movement must be seen as
a reactionary and authoritarian attempt to impose an artificial
and unnecessary conformity on language and is therefore a movement
of political and social control and to be resisted as such.

When I proposed the "referer" field to Tim I used the alternative
spelling as a means of signalling the iminent need to deconstruct
the concept of spelling, in particular the notion that machines 
should follow human models of communications in issues which are 
entirely conventional. From the point of view of the machine the
signifier "referer" is superior to that of "referrer" by virtue 
of being a byte shorter while referencing the same designatum. 
I interpret fact that this differentiation between signifier and
signified was brought to light by the "referer" field as an
unconcious but nevertheless valid recapitulation of Goedel's
incompleteness theorem.

I suggest that future comment in this thread be transferred to

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 1996 09:30:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:40:17 UTC