[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lynx-dev refer(r)er headers (was

From: Klaus Weide
Subject: Re: lynx-dev refer(r)er headers (was
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 13:38:07 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 19 Nov 1998, Philip Webb wrote:

> > This is from RFC 2068:
> >    The Referer[sic] request-header field allows the client to specify,
> >    for the server's benefit, the address (URI) of the resource from
> >    which the Request-URI was obtained (the "referrer", although the
> >    header field is misspelled.) The Referer request-header allows a
> >    server to generate lists of back-links to resources for interest,
> >    logging, optimized caching, etc. It also allows obsolete or mistyped
> >    links to be traced for maintenance. The Referer field MUST NOT be
> >    sent if the Request-URI was obtained from a source that does not have
> >    its own URI, such as input from the user keyboard.
> if i understand you & RFC 2068 correctly, Lynx shouldn't be sending
> a Refer(r)er header when the request is generated by  \ ,
> since there is no source with a URI in that case.

Probably.  Although one could interpret "address of the resource from
which the Request-URI was obtained" in a way that includes what Lynx does.

If \ is supposed to have "history" character, as we seem to agree on
in the caching threads, then Lynx should send the same Referer header
it was using the first time.  (That is, as long as we don't have the
source cache to avoid a new request anyway.)  But we don't do that
for "real" history requests either, (left arrow or history list),
because we don't try to remember the Referer that was in effect when
the document was requested earlier.

I guess the point is that a Referer header may or may not be sent
for any request, depending on client settings and how exactly the
user "got there"; and that it is unwise for site authors to use it for
navigation purposes.  But of course some people do it anyway.

> it really is good to have you back (big grin):
> did you spend the  347 days  having your brain cells individually sharpened?

No, most of the time away from the Internet and the braincells are
deteriorating but thanks for asking. :)

> just try not to intimidate us all too much ...

Don't be intimidated. It's more talking than doing anyway.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]