> > And again, a client that is too dumb to resolve a relative link is by
> definition a broken one, regarding to the respective RFCs as mentioned
> by Jan.
>
> Actually, it was me who mentioned the RFC.
Right, sorry. Discussions spanning several days lead to confusion on my side. ;-)
> >>> and back to your question,
> >>> we don't know at the client side whether the relative links have
> been
> >> created from the original base URI the client used or
> >>> from the current URI, and 'should' is not a strong enough
> guarantee.
> >> Saving payloads and restoring them afterwards may present
> >>> another issue as far as the resolution is concerned.
> >>
> >> Can you provide an example. Seems I got lost again. Sorry :)
> >
> > Maybe we should start using moderated threads concentrating on one
> single proposal at one time. We all lose track too often. This is
> uneffective for all participants.
>
> When I said that I got lost, I meant that I did not get the point. Not
> sure if moderated threads would help here.
Well, it is one possible help since the moderator could chime in and provide a different view of the argument, as he might have understood it and can present it from an angle not know to the original poster.