This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 8535 - 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.
Summary: For the sake of consistency, should the misspelling not be preserved, at leas...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: HTML WG
Classification: Unclassified
Component: pre-LC1 HTML5 spec (editor: Ian Hickson) (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: LC
Assignee: Ian 'Hixie' Hickson
QA Contact: HTML WG Bugzilla archive list
URL: http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-12-22 16:03 UTC by contributor
Modified: 2010-10-04 14:54 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description contributor 2009-12-22 16:03:07 UTC 
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
Comment 1 Ian 'Hixie' Hickson 2010-01-11 02:07:06 UTC 
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.