Was the misspelling of the HTTP field name Referer intentional?

I read recently (I can't recall where, or I'd return to that source) that the misspelling of HTTP header field name Referer in the specification was intentional. Is that accurate? If so, why?

Phillip Hallam-Baker and Roy Fielding are responsible for it. By the time they realized it was incorrect, too many people were using it.

Now, Phillip jokes about getting the Oxford Dictionary to recognize his spelling:

> Its like when I did the referer field. > I got nothing but grief for my choice > of spelling. I am now attempting to > get the spelling corrected in the OED > since my spelling is used several > billion times a minute more than > theirs.

Roy also joked about the fact that the UNIX spell command didn't recognize any spelling of it:

> > Has anyone else noticed that the HTTP header "Referer:" is spelled > wrong? > > That's okay, neither one (referer or > referrer) is understood by "spell" > anyway. I say we should just blame it > on France. ;-)

Info taken from HTTP_REFERER Origins Wikipedia article.

I believe it was a mistake that was only picked up after release, at that point it was too late to change it and a lot of dependencies already existed.

a wiki link to (semi) prove it :)