From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2020-01-21 15:51:08
On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 2:13 AM Andrey Semashev via Boost
> I'd be more interested in a more generic URI library.
> Along with a few associated algorithms, e.g. those described in:
Yes, this library does that. I do not use the term "URI" because it is
confusing and pointless. They are all URLs now. My library follows the
RFC, except that I have renamed the top level production rules to
reflect this preference:
URL = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ] [ "#" fragment ]
URL-reference = URL / relative-ref
absolute-URL = scheme ":" hier-part [ "?" query ]
I didn't invent this idea, deprecating the word "URI" and using "URL"
consistently in its place is recommended by WhatWG.
> Why not uri and uri_view.
First, I don't use the term "uri" ever. But i think you're asking, why
not "url" and "url_view?" Because `url::url` and `url::url_view` look
bad, they repeat a word. Thus we have `url::view` and `url::value`,
which are sensible.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk