- From: Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>
- Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 11:39:36 -0500
- To: Charlie Reis <creis@chromium.org>
- Cc: Maciej Stachowiak <mjs@apple.com>, whatwg@lists.whatwg.org, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Charlie Reis <creis@chromium.org> wrote: > There are two main differences from the rel=noreferrer feature. First (as > you note), this does still send the referrer. That's useful for sites that > don't want to be affected by the newly opened page but that still rely on > referrers for analytics. From my earlier examples, that might include > links in social networks (where the social network might want to be seen as > the source of the referral) or links between apps on the same domain. I > suppose it could also be useful for ads. > > The other difference is that this proposal supports script-initiated > navigations, such as window.open(url, "_unrelated"). Gmail is one case > that depends on using JavaScript to open links from email messages, and so > it cannot use the rel=noreferrer syntax. > That's not a difference between "unrelated" and "noreferrer", though. It applies to noreferrer, too. I had to do this recently (a script-initiated rel=noreferrer navigation). FYI, I worked around it by creating a temporary HTMLAnchorElement, setting its href and rel properties and calling click(). A way to do this directly with window.open would be nice, but it's orthogonal to noreferrer vs. unrelated. -- Glenn Maynard
Received on Tuesday, 28 August 2012 16:40:08 UTC