No, don't, because it was wrong. The relative pathname would still have needed a graphics.dir in it, as it would not be interpreted relative to the graphicsDir of the Diagram, but to the URL of the page, which is something like /rules/grand-apothecary.
The problem was in the betza.js. It takes apart the name of the %-containing image at the dots, to test whether it already contains a file extension or that the specified graphicsType still should be added. But then it has to put everything that was not an extension together again, (separated by dots), and it was forgetting the last part.
No, don't, because it was wrong. The relative pathname would still have needed a graphics.dir in it, as it would not be interpreted relative to the graphicsDir of the Diagram, but to the URL of the page, which is something like /rules/grand-apothecary.
The problem was in the betza.js. It takes apart the name of the %-containing image at the dots, to test whether it already contains a file extension or that the specified graphicsType still should be added. But then it has to put everything that was not an extension together again, (separated by dots), and it was forgetting the last part.