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). What was your reason for making this change, out of curiosity?
MinuteElectron.