Re: Relative URI or relative URI reference

* Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Yes, there is. If it is confusing (as this blatantly is), then the 
>> confusingness should be noted in the spec. Not doing so makes the spec 
>> harder for the average person to understand.
>
>What confusion?  So far, the only thing that is confused is that
>some people believe use of the term relative URI cannot exist
>separately from the word "references".  Nobody seems to be confused
>about what a URI may be,

There is a lot of confusion about whether a "URI" must start with a
scheme and whether it may have fragment identifier. I've seen people
arguing for yes/yes, no/yes, yes/no, and no/no, I consider no/no the
most reasonable interpretation of RFC 2396 and no/yes the most common
interpretation. RFC2396bis seems to be saying yes/yes.

Do you agree that RFC2396bis says yes/yes?

Is whatever it says different from what RFC2396 said?

If it is different, how exactly and why?