On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Wild <[email protected]> wrote: > On 15 December 2011 15:27, Matthew A. Miller <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Nov 1, 2011, at 15:36, Kim Alvefur wrote: >> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I've noted that Message Forwarding [XEP-0297] doesn't give any >>> recommendations for how (or if) you should indicate to which extension >>> it belongs. Is this something that would be desirable? >>> >>> Currently Message Carbons [XEP-0297] has what can be seen as an >>> indicator inside the <forwarded/> element[1]. Would it be better or >>> worse to, let's say, have this as a child of the parent <message/>? >>> >>> 1: http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0280.html#example-13 >> >> To be honest, I don't remember why I chose to put the indicators as children >> of the <forwarded/> instead of as siblings. I can see either pattern making >> sense, and am happy to change XEP-0280 if the current pattern is too strange. >> >> Maybe one of XEP-0297's authors can comment on this? >> > > I'm inclined to say it should be a sibling. When you consider how an > application is going to sensibly handle this, it's going to first want > to categorize it as a carbons message before extracting the message > contents from <forwarded/>. Partly the principle is that you can judge > a message type by the namespaces of its immediate children.
I agree. /K
