Index: libs/filesystem/doc/exception.htm
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/libs/filesystem/doc/exception.htm,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -r1.11 exception.htm
--- libs/filesystem/doc/exception.htm	5 Oct 2004 15:45:20 -0000	1.11
+++ libs/filesystem/doc/exception.htm	27 Feb 2005 18:56:02 -0000
@@ -125,7 +125,7 @@
   appropriate:</p>
   <ul>
     <li>boost::filesystem::class-name::function-name for errors from public 
-    member functions</li>
+    member functions.</li>
     <li>boost::filesystem::class-name for errors not identified with a 
     particular member function.</li>
     <li>boost::filesystem::function-name for errors from non-member functions.</li>
@@ -203,4 +203,4 @@
 
 </body>
 
-</html>
\ No newline at end of file
+</html>
Index: libs/filesystem/doc/faq.htm
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvsroot/boost/boost/libs/filesystem/doc/faq.htm,v
retrieving revision 1.14
diff -u -r1.14 faq.htm
--- libs/filesystem/doc/faq.htm	26 Feb 2005 01:58:30 -0000	1.14
+++ libs/filesystem/doc/faq.htm	27 Feb 2005 18:56:02 -0000
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@
 <p><b>Why do some function names have a &quot;native_&quot; prefix?</b></p>
 <p>To alert users that the results are inherently non-portable. The names are 
 deliberately ugly to discourage use except where really necessary.</p>
-<p><b>Why not support a concept of specific kinds of file systems, such as posix_file_system or windows_file_system.</b></p>
+<p><b>Why not support a concept of specific kinds of file systems, such as posix_file_system or windows_file_system?</b></p>
 <p>Portability is one of the one or two most important requirements for the 
 library.&nbsp;Gaining some advantage by using features specific to particular 
 operating systems is not a requirement. There doesn't appear to be much need for