- From: dolphinling <lists@dolphinling.net>
- Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 21:59:58 -0500
Ian Hickson wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Julian Reschke wrote: >> Ian Hickson wrote: >>> What do people think of this idea: >>> >>> We make "Referer" always have the value "PING". >> Referer takes a relative reference, or a URI. Not a good idea. > > Interesting. > > I see two ways forward here. One would be to redefine Referer to remove > the relative URI thing, since, to my knowledge at least, nobody uses it. > > The other is that we can define the magic value to be "#PING" instead, > since that's a non-conforming Referer value right now. > > Would that work for people? dolphinling? Darin? If (X-)Ping-From/Ping-To are present, why is a referer needed at all? I'd say just leave it out. If not, #PING works for me. Cookies and authentication headers I'm ambivalent about; no one's made a persuasive case either way for them, and I haven't looked myself. >>> We add two headers, "X-Ping-From" which has the value of the page that >>> had the link, and "X-Ping-To" which has the value of the page that is >>> being opened. (sorry for the double copy, Hixie, forgot to CC the list the first time) -- dolphinling <http://dolphinling.net/>
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2008 18:59:58 UTC