- From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
- Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:58:02 +0100
- To: <public-webapi@w3.org>
"Mark Nottingham" <mnot@mnot.net> >> >> The Referer header MUST be set, and MUST NOT be overridable; once >> >> cross-site XHR is available, sites will want to use it for >> >> security, logging, etc. >> > >> > I don't agree with this, a user agent MUST be allowed to anonymise >> > browsing, tracking users is not a suitable reason for changing this >> > behaviour. > > Referer isn't generally used for user tracking; perhaps you're thinking > of cookies? referer would be very often used for user tracking, if xmlhttprequest was a MUST on send it. > Many, many sites use the Referer as a first-level defense against > content-stealing. > This works because site B has no control over the Referer that site A > sends. It does not work perfectly (you have to account for browsers that > don't send referer), but it works well enough, because third parties > can't control how your browser sends Referer headers. If you give > programmatic control of the Referer to site B, you allow them to bypass > such mechanisms. Except of course you only allow them if there's some hypothetical cross domain XHR, something which doesn't exist, and then usefully there's a way of taking an XHR stream and converting it to an image or video stream, again something that doesn't exist. > Most browsers today (the only exception I've seen yet is Mozilla) send > Referer from XMLHttpRequest; by explicitly disallowing it from being > automatically set, you're diverging from the current model for XHR, as > well as diverging from the model for normal browser operation. I don't want to specifically disallow it, I don't want it to be MUST, nor do I see a particular reason for it not to be overridable - a browser may want to not allow it to be overridable without specific user agreement outside of the same domain for such reasons, but I don't see the reason for disallowing it from overriding within the same domain - given that any cross domain is with the explicit agreement of the user in all implementations today, I don't see the problem with any of them setting it, indeed I have many use cases for it. The most prominent being the same Accessibility Testing assistant mentioned elsewhere. Cheers, Jim.
Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 21:59:14 UTC