W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-http-wg@w3.org > April to June 2009

Re: Sending Referer [#144]

From: Adam Barth <w3c@adambarth.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 14:11:40 -0700
Message-ID: <7789133a0906011411g7741545cw64c0bdb13549db68@mail.gmail.com>
To: Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org>
Cc: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 12:14 PM, Brian Smith <brian@briansmith.org> wrote:
> There's no way to represent the null value in a way compatible with RFC 2616
> syntax.

Why is that?  The RFC 2616 syntax appears to be happy with an
absoluteURI.  We need only represent the null value using an
absoluteURI.

> New syntax for existing headers should be done only for HTTP 1.2 or
> later. Further, this would be a new feature, which would make it out of
> scope for HTTPbis.

This appears to be clarifying the semantics of the Referer header, not
adding a new feature.  As in "if you see a Referer header with this
value, then that means there wasn't a referring URI or the user agent
got confused and couldn't figure out the referring URI properly."

> I think that the less that is said about Referer in the HTTPbis
> specification, the better. Its syntax and intended purpose is enough. Any
> requirements regarding Referer for UAs are pointless; they will be ignored
> by most UAs, especially UAs that aren't browsers. A specification for what
> web browsers should do with the Referer should go into a browser-specific
> specification.

As things stand, the document forbids user agents from always sending
the Referer header, preventing a browser-specific specification from
requiring this behavior.

Adam
Received on Monday, 1 June 2009 21:12:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:03 GMT