Re: Relative URI or relative URI reference

* Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Why don't you read the document that is being discussed, rather than
>ask my interpretation of it?  The whole point of this review is to see
>if you can understand the technology simply by reading the 
>specification.

I asked you to confirm my understanding. That implies that I read the
document and seems to be a necessary step in order to see whether the
document is sufficiently clear. Could you thus please answer the two
questions you have skipped? Thanks.