On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Kevin Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I have changed my mind, as indicated in the other thread. I think the use of a forward should be a child of the using protocol. So for carbons, you'd have: <message><carbon><forward><message/></forward></carbon></message> The forward is a property of the carbon, not a property of the message (Using the 'can use direct children to determine type of parent' idea - Message "is a" Carbon, Carbon "is a" forward) /K
