zlacker

>>kjhugh+(OP)
I can't wait to see what JWZ has to say about this.

>>s1mon+ta
That was my first thought.

A few days ago JWZ had a great take on where Mozilla is today: https://www.jwz.org/blog/2024/06/mozillas-original-sin/

>>Nelson+ue
Any link to there from here will only get you JWZ's take on HN.

>>matthe+0g
That's kind of hilarious. I guess he's using the HTTP "referer" tag

>>lizkno+hh
There are a bunch of settings in Firefox that affect this (if you don't mind occasionally breaking a Web site in a way no one will bother to diagnose): https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/Referrer

>>neilv+ap
They spelled it "correctly" there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_referer

Etymology

The misspelling of referrer was introduced in the original proposal by computer scientist Phillip Hallam-Baker to incorporate the "Referer" header field into the HTTP specification.[7][8] The misspelling was set in stone by the time (May 1996) of its incorporation into the Request for Comments standards document RFC 1945[9] (which 'reflects common usage of the protocol referred to as "HTTP/1.0"' at that time); document co-author Roy Fielding remarked in March 1995 that "neither one (referer or referrer) is understood by" the standard Unix spell checker of the period.[10] "Referer" has since become a widely used spelling in the industry when discussing HTTP referrers; usage of the misspelling is not universal, though, as the correct spelling "referrer" is used in some web specifications such as the Referrer-Policy HTTP header or the Document Object Model.[3]