Rich Baker on the Points of Light Setting.

[Orius]

However, each DM uses a different amount of assumed world background, and that's what Rich is saying.

I think that's the point being made. I think it's a matter of DMs assuming a number of general D&D tropes in their homebrews, even if the vast majority don't really make it into play. I've done the same thing; Corellon and Gruumsh's duel is there in the background, even though it was never important in my actual games. I have bits of the planes, the Tomb of Horrors, and the Ro7P in my campaign background. I don't limit to just 1e based stuff either, I incorporated the campaign area map from the 2e Night Below boxed set into my main campaign map so it would be there when and if I decide to run it. The players themselves might never even notice most of the stuff, but it's still there to me as a DM.

 

[Orius]

Moving beyond the core: the complete fighters, wizards, and thieves handbooks are setting neutral and do not discuss any cultural element that would tie it to the realms specific.

The Thief's Handbook had at least two thief writeups, one was Greyhawk, and the other was FR. So that book theoretically covered both.

All the later Completes (Bard, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Ninja, Barbarian) all again remain setting neutral.

Actually, Bard had several mentions of Greyhawk specific material.

So where does this "2e=Realms" myth come from? Mostly three things.

1.) Realms was the only "generic fantasy" setting TSR put out for a long time (most others had some twist to them, like Dragonlance, Ravenloft, or Dark Sun or were supported spuratically like GH or Mystara) and TSR supported it heavily with sourcebooks, box sets and novels.
2.) All TSR media of those days (video games, etc) tended toward Realms as its setting (Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Icewind Dale, Pool of Radiance) save for many of the secondary novel lines, a handful of Gold-Box games set in Dark Sun, Dragonlance, and Ravenloft, a crappy Ravenoft fighting game, and Planescape: Torment.
3.) Intense coverage of the setting in Dragon. Many reoccurring articles in Dragon (Elminster's Guide, Vodo's Guides, Wyrms of the North, Ecologies/Monster Hunter's Guides) had a Realm's bend to them, creating a feeling of heavy support and making the Realms fleshed out beyond most other settings which was supported "equally" at the time.

I tend to agree. During 2e, Greyhawk and FR, and later Mystara were the generic worlds. Even 2 was really too many, and adding Mystara just further cluttered things. FR became the main generic setting because of the popularity of the novels, because there was a ton of material for thte setting, and because a lot of Greyhawk fans stopped purchasing product after Gary left and TSR published a number of very bad Greyhawk modules. Meanwhile, Mystara fans didn't like the 2e reimagining of the setting. That left a large core of FR fans who continued to buy FR product.

 

[AZRogue]

I like the approach they're taking. They ARE, after all, including a starting area map in the DMG. That's more than enough. Giving useful and colorful pieces for DMs to place where they will is a smart move on their part.

Why would we possibly need a completely new setting, anyway? It's not as though there aren't a few out there already. The whole POL thing gives enough of a skeleton that it would take minimal time to drop a dot on a piece of paper and say "that's there".

If they hold true to this then I will most certainly be buying the books.