Re: Boost.URL -- some notes

From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2022-06-07 00:42:52

On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 5:10 PM Gavin Lambert via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> You're correct that the wider public doesn't really understand the
> distinction, but it does seem a bit weird that you're mixing the terms.
> Perhaps you should just use URL everywhere, if you don't like URIs?

Yes, that is what I have done almost everywhere. The exception is when
documentation or interface refers explicitly to grammar, for example
in the function parse_uri:

<https://master.url.cpp.al/url/ref/boost__urls__parse_uri.html>

The Syntax Components section of the RFC uses the term URI as the
label for the BNF production grammar:

<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-3>

Therefore to keep keyword searches and documentation sensible and
aligned with the library, I always use the term URI in this context.
This also applies to compound terms such as URI-reference:

<https://master.url.cpp.al/url/ref/boost__urls__parse_uri_reference.html>
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986#section-4.1>

It wouldn't make sense to rename this to "URL-reference" as users
would not find it scanning the RFC or doing a keyword search in the
RFC document. They would also not find it on a precise Google search:

Compare:

<https://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22uri-reference%22>

with

<https://www.google.com/search?q=%2B%22url-reference%22>

Thanks