8535 2009-12-22 16:03:07 +0000 For the sake of consistency, should the misspelling not be preserved, at least as an accepted varient? The keywords "noreferrer" and "noreferer" should be equivalent. 2010-10-04 14:54:56 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified HTML WG pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) unspecified Other other RESOLVED WONTFIX http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#link-type-noreferrer P3 normal LC 1 contributor ian ian mike public-html-admin public-html-wg-issue-tracking public-html-bugzilla oldest_to_newest 30228 0 contributor 2009-12-22 16:03:07 +0000 Section: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/#link-type-noreferrer Comment: For the sake of consistency, should the misspelling not be preserved, at least as an accepted varient? The keywords "noreferrer" and "noreferer" should be equivalent. Posted from: 86.46.195.33 30855 1 ian 2010-01-11 02:07:06 +0000 EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document: http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html Status: Rejected Change Description: no spec change Rationale: Originally I tried using the misspelling everywhere (for the sake of consistency), but this was highly unpopular amongst pretty much everyone but me, so I changed it to the right spelling where possible. I don't think having both is a good idea; having two spellings for keywords leads to all kinds of complications that are very hard to deal with, and which are only worth it if there's a real big gain to be had. Here, there really isn't.