Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
No, it is not meant to replace a [.com] RFC2606
compliant example URL with a
[.org] RFC2606 compliant example URL. This is what I meant to explain in the
commit message. What was causing the unclarity exactly?
It is an unusual change without any explanation of why the change was
made, just a reference to RFC2606 compliance - which made an implication
that the original URL was not RFC2606 compliant (which, of course, it
is).