On Wed, 2012-01-04 at 11:24 +0000, 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.
I think that either what Kev said or this: <message> <which-protocol/> <forward> <something/> </forward> </message> makes most sense. (MattJs 137bis draft does this.) With the later, you can have some separation of metadata and content. But more importantly, I think that consistency among forwards-using XEPs would be nice. -- Kim Alvefur <z...@zash.se>
