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

Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment

From: Hausenblas, Michael <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 17:00:56 +0000
Message-ID: <DD90DB8C-3670-4BC0-89A0-F9AA0B37AE03@deri.org>
To: "Vincent Murphy" <vdm@vdm.ie>
Cc: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Vincent,

We're having this discussion in the W3C Media Fragments Working Group  
as well. More details can be provided (I'm on travel and hence  
limited ;)

Cheers, Michael

Sent from my iPhone

On 14 Feb 2009, at 16:43, "Vincent Murphy" <vdm@vdm.ie> wrote:

> During a discussion [0] about why Youtube uses ?feature=related in  
> its URIs, I observed that the Referer header URI, if it included a  
> fragment identifier, could be used identify the anchor used to  
> initiate a GET. This would be useful for
>
> - analysing anchor popularity,
> - eliminating the need for workarounds and hacks like Youtube ? 
> feature=related
> - encourage cleaner, canonical URIs.
>
> I did a search of discussions around the HTTP protocol, but was not  
> able to find the origin of the statement from RFC2616 Section 14.32  
> [1], paraphrased in the subject of this message. This statement is  
> also in draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-05, section 10.6 [2].
>
> I seek links to the discussion or rationale and origin of this  
> statement, or failing that, comments about how allowing fragment  
> identifiers in Referer URIs would enhance or violate web architecture.
>
> Thanks,
> -Vincent Murphy
>
> 0. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7x49v/canonical_url_tag_the_most_important_advancement/c07ne0v
> 1. http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.36
> 2. http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-httpbis-p2-semantics-05.txt
>
Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 17:01:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 27 April 2012 06:51:01 GMT