--- Comment #7 from Mike Kaganski <[hidden email]> ---
(In reply to Sascha Z from comment #6)
So practically the decision was this:
We agree that for majority of practical uses of linked templates (with the
exception of the same case that I and Sascha Z both described, and agreed that
it should be not frequent, and even further, neither me nor Sascha Z use in
practice, and only speculate about its possibility), the absolute paths are
needed, and this need prevents users from using relative linking for all other
useful reasons in their documents. Thus majority of users who rely on linked
templates cannot presently use the relative linking in their documents, because
that negatively affects their linked templates
Yet we close a bug that asks to change the linking of templates to absolute, on
which grounds? that those users can configure their linking (as said, this way
disabling themselves from using relative linking in their documents).
Have I missed something?
Current "resolution" makes 100% of users of linked templates unhappy. Both
groups - the discussed majority, and the minority, both need to configure their
linking according to the needs of templates, and then be unable to use the
other way for other uses in document (like linked images); or use the linking
mode needed for their contents (images), sacrificing the linked templates.
The proposal asked to make the major group happy allowing them to use linked
templates, and independent mode for their images; while keeping minority
The ideal solution could be a separate configuration, also discussed.