| Revision as of 12:46, 28 February 2007 editAhoerstemeier (talk | contribs)110,683 editsm Reverted edits by 125.22.118.144 (talk) to last version by Redquark← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:22, 4 July 2007 edit undoDraicone (talk | contribs)2,734 edits RewriteNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ==Move to "referrer"== | ==Move to "referrer"== | ||
| Someone moved this page without discussion to "referrer" and removed all mention of the spelling "referer", for no apparent reason other than personal preference. I just reverted this. It is important to understand that the spelling "referer" is not simply jargon but the spelling actually used within the HTTP protocol itself, as well as all official standards documents. The spelling kind of irks me too but at this point it is deeply embedded in the fabric of the Web. It would be misleading to spell it differently, especially for those people who are writing programs manipulating it. ] 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | Someone moved this page without discussion to "referrer" and removed all mention of the spelling "referer", for no apparent reason other than personal preference. I just reverted this. It is important to understand that the spelling "referer" is not simply jargon but the spelling actually used within the HTTP protocol itself, as well as all official standards documents. The spelling kind of irks me too but at this point it is deeply embedded in the fabric of the Web. It would be misleading to spell it differently, especially for those people who are writing programs manipulating it. ] 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Rewrite == | |||
| I've just rewritten the '''Derefer''' section, Misplaced Pages does not need a list of dereferer services. The concept of this '''dereferer''' appears to be altering the HTTP header defining the referring URI, so I've put in a concise section explaining the whole thing and mentioning '''dereferer'''. I've also removed all the external links, as none of them were very relevant to the article and looked like link spam. --] ] 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:22, 4 July 2007
Would it not make more sense to spell the word correctly across the majority of this page, apart from where necessary to highlight the mistake? Andrewferrier 14:16, 2004 Oct 23 (UTC)
- I think the intention in not doing so was to imply (somewhat justifiably) that "referer" is, although historically a mistake, now the "correct"/"accepted" spelling for this usage. Essentially, "referer" and "referrer" have become different words, and this article is only about the first of them. This is, of course, a rather descriptivist take on the situation... - IMSoP 19:30, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Phillip Hallam-Baker, the original proposer of the referer field and most likely the person most likely for the spelling has made this exact argument, that his spelling is now the most commonly used and thus is now the 'correct' one.
I think it's cool that Referrer redirects to a 'common misspelling' of itself. :) - ulayiti (talk) 22:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Move to "referrer"
Someone moved this page without discussion to "referrer" and removed all mention of the spelling "referer", for no apparent reason other than personal preference. I just reverted this. It is important to understand that the spelling "referer" is not simply jargon but the spelling actually used within the HTTP protocol itself, as well as all official standards documents. The spelling kind of irks me too but at this point it is deeply embedded in the fabric of the Web. It would be misleading to spell it differently, especially for those people who are writing programs manipulating it. Redquark 02:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Rewrite
I've just rewritten the Derefer section, Misplaced Pages does not need a list of dereferer services. The concept of this dereferer appears to be altering the HTTP header defining the referring URI, so I've put in a concise section explaining the whole thing and mentioning dereferer. I've also removed all the external links, as none of them were very relevant to the article and looked like link spam. --Draicone 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)