On Wed Jan 4 11:24:50 2012, Kevin Smith wrote:
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Dave Cridland <[email protected]>
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.
Dave.
--
Dave Cridland - mailto:[email protected] - xmpp:[email protected]
- acap://acap.dave.cridland.net/byowner/user/dwd/bookmarks/
- http://dave.cridland.net/
Infotrope Polymer - ACAP, IMAP, ESMTP, and Lemonade
