Re: Referer URI MUST NOT include a fragment

Have Youtube themselves been involved in any discussion about the use 
for ?feature=related?

Seems to me it's not anything to do with Referer headers, but occurs 
when a user actively clicks on a link to see a related video.  Such 
"related" video is returned by youtube from a previous request.  This 
allows youtube to track whether people click on links related videos or 
not - e.g. gauge effectiveness of this system.

I don't see how the referer header with a fragment would be any better.

Vincent Murphy 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. 
> 1.
> 2. 

Adrien de Croy - WinGate Proxy Server -

Received on Saturday, 14 February 2009 22:18:04 UTC