No. That was already tried and, as I mentioned, will not work. In order to avoid some very nasty deep recursion problems, the regex does double-quotish expansion only once, at the beginning of the match process.
Your solution breaks on something ( admittedly idiotic, but for what I am doing I need to be absolutely certain I parse the path correctly ) like this:
/foo/mik/../mik/./../mik
The regex you provide translates that to /foo/mik/mik, when the correct answer is /foo/mik
Mik