From: Vinnie Falco (vinnie.falco_at_[hidden])
Date: 2021-10-13 22:59:38
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 3:52 PM Gavin Lambert via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Bear in mind that most of those are Reported and not Verified, so they
> should be treated as non-authoritative comments.
Never a dull moment!!
> For example, the suggested amendment for parsing too many .. path
> components seems incorrect and the original is more correct. (Unmatched
> .. components should not be left in a canonical URL.)
I'm still working on that part. But I think that the reg-name change is legit?
The addition of path-abempty doesn't actually change anything it
seems, but I have updated the documentation.
Thanks