While we are unable correct the spelling of "referer", we
certainly need not duplicate it for "noreferrer". There must be
some end to this self-humiliation.
I think it's way better to stay consistent. Especially as the
feature affects the Referer (sic) header.
I too think Anne is right here...
This may be one of those "never been done, so can never happen"
things, but
couldn't the spec as easily support both?
It seems a bit silly that stuff should have to be spelled wrong to
work.
I'm really sorry to be diving into a trivial debate like this, but in
our work on the Safari browser we've always treated the HTTP header
field with the name "Referer" as the "referrer header field" and
considered the misspelling part of the HTTP protocol, not to be
propagated into other contexts.
And as far as I can tell, standards other than HTTP have taken this
tack too. For example, the document you can access from JavaScript has
a "referrer" property, without the misspelling.
I don't think that spelling the attribute "noreferer" is consistent.
It should be "noreferrer".
-- Darin
