From: Markus KARG <markus_at_headcrashing.eu>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 19:09:33 +0200 > > +1. Absolute as a default is obviously more interoperable (or
> portable, to use your terminology).
> >
> >> S.B - I actually did not mean 'portable', it just got typed out
> somehow and then I realized I actually meant 'interoperable' :-)
>
> FWIW, on a second thought, Jan may have a valid point here - relative
> links may be significantly more efficient esp.
> when used as part of small message payloads. Having "workaround" the
> option for ill-behaved clients may be good enough
> and we may not need to trade the default efficiency for interop in this
> case.
>
> S.B. That's OK.
> Personally, the idea of writing the client code which checks the links
> and then goes and builds absolute URIs as opposed to doing immediate
> GET
> makes me a bit nervous, especially that I will probably write not a
> very good server code which will 'cost' WEB extra "http://myhost.com"
> per link :-)
> But of course it's up to a concrete application code which does decide
> to use @Ref on which form the links should take, so I'm going to
> support
> whatever decision the group takes
Imagine your payload is a shopping cart that contains 10 articles. Each
article is described just by a URI pointing to the full description.
I think this spares rather lot of bandwith (just calculate the percentage if
you like -- visually it looks like saving 75%), so few more complexity in
the code pays off very soon (I don't know about your's, but my bandwidth is
rather expensive).