Re: Assertion in svn_uri_is_canonical

[Philip Martin]

Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> writes:

> What is the canonical form of this?
>
>      scheme://./
>
> Should we drop '.' to give:
>
>      scheme:///
>
> or do we have to retain it as
>
>      scheme://./
>
> and change svn_uri_is_canonical to allow a hostname '.'?

Another problem is

     scheme://[.]

which we currently canonicalize as

     scheme://[.%5D

and that doesn't look right either.

-- 
Philip Martin | Subversion Committer
WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*