The relative URL draft has been forwarded to IESG for standards track
consideration.
> Note that the URL RFC, 1738, is standards track, whereas the "URIs as
> used on the web" RFC, 1630, is informational. HTML 2.0 cites 1738
> normatively, and 1630 informatively. Hence HTML 2.0 provides its own
> definition of the term URI. As a happy conicidence, it matches the
> definition in 1630 (at least it will before I'm done -- I got the
> fragment identifier stuff wrong.)
It would be useful if the URI working group definition for URI could
match the HTML working group definitions. When you're done rewriting
this definition to your satisfaction (or exhaustion), I suggest you
send the wording around separately for review.