On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: > On Wed Jan 4 11:24:50 2012, Kevin Smith wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Dave Cridland <d...@cridland.net> wrote: >> > On Wed Jan 4 11:12:56 2012, Kevin Smith wrote: >> >> <message><carbon><forward><message/></forward></carbon></message> >> > Isn't the <forward/> providing no information at all, here? (Not that it >> > ever was). >> > >> > Surely it's entirely and completely implied by the <carbon/>. >> >> Other than making it nice and easy for clients to deal with the >> forwarded message. It's true we could put the children of <forward> >> directly into every parent protocol that uses it (currently only two >> or three, I realise), but it's nice to be able to reuse the 'oh, it's >> a forward' parsing/serialising/whatever. > > > Rather than "Oh, it's a message"? > > Just seems tautological.
Although messages aren't the only possible children of <forward/>. /K
