On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Matthew Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Aug 23, 2012, at 07:07, Matthew Wild wrote: > >> Hi Jefry, >> >> Thanks for the feedback. >> >> On 23 August 2012 03:52, Jefry Lagrange <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I don't think the use case with message is enough. It would be more >>> clear if it had an use case with an IQ. It is not clear how one should >>> respond to a forwarded IQ. >> >> Mmm :) >> >> The specification used to be "message forwarding", and the last >> revision changed it to allow the forwarding of any stanza. I think >> this is fine, as I understand some protocols may want to forward all >> kinds of stanza. >> >> However outside such a protocol, receiving a forwarded iq doesn't seem >> to make much sense to me. It certainly shouldn't be treated as an >> actual <iq> in my opinion. There are far too many problems with that. >> >>> Another question would be: Is it possible to bypass the middle man, >>> once you get the forwarded stanza (in case you need to reply)? >> >> In the case of a forwarded message that is displayed to the user - >> it's the user's choice whether to send a reply, and who to. >> >> In the case of any other kind of stanza, or one forwarded as part of >> another protocol - that's really something specific to that protocol, >> and not the forwarding mechanism. >> >> If there are no objections to my line of thinking, I'll try and >> clarify the XEP - at least about <iq>s. > > This fits with my interpretation, too.
AOL /K
