This is more in line with how we handle closely coupled specifications
already. While there are subdirectories for "large" specifications (such
as MUC and PubSub), those only refer to a single XEP document. When
there are multiple separate XEP documents, we have separate modules for
that.
This is a large change and as such, it needs good motivation. Let me
remind you of the ultimate goal: we want a derive macro which allows us
to FromXml/IntoXml, and that derive macro should be usable from
`xmpp_parsers` and other crates.
For that, any code generated by the derive macro mustn't depend on any
code in the `xmpp_parsers` crate, because you cannot name the crate you
are in portably (`xmpp_parsers::..` wouldn't resolve within
`xmpp_parsers`, and `crate::..` would point at other crates if the macro
was used in other crates).
We also want to interoperate with code already implementing
`TryFrom<Element>` and `Into<Element>` on structs. This ultimately
requires that we have an error type which is shared by the two
implementations and that error type must be declared in the `xso` crate
to be usable by the macros.
Thus, we port the error type over to use the type declared in `xso`.
This changes the structure of the error type greatly; I do not think
that `xso` should have to know about all the different types we are
parsing there and they don't deserve special treatment. Wrapping them in
a `Box<dyn ..>` seems more appropriate.
From [XEP-0004: Data Forms](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0004.html#protocol-field):
> ...
> The <field/> element MAY contain any of the following child elements:
>
> <desc/>
> The XML character data of this element provides a natural-language
> description of the field, intended for presentation in a
> user-agent (e.g., as a "tool-tip", help button, or explanatory text
> provided near the field). The <desc/> element SHOULD NOT contain
> newlines (the \n and \r characters), since layout is the
> responsibility of a user agent, and any handling of
> newlines (e.g., presentation in a user interface) is unspecified
> herein. (Note: To provide a description of a field, it
> is RECOMMENDED to use a <desc/> element rather than
> a separate <field/> element of type "fixed".)
> ...
Looking at [the spec](https://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0004.html#protocol-field)
it seems valid not to have a `var` attribute set, at least for fields of type
`fixed` that is:
> If the element type is anything other than "fixed" (see below), it MUST
> possess a 'var' attribute that uniquely identifies the field in the context
> of the form (if it is "fixed", it MAY possess a 'var' attribute). The element
> MAY possess a 'label' attribute that defines a human-readable name for the field.
XEP-0068 is rather explicit that `FORM_TYPE` fields which are not
`type='hidden'` MUST be ignored (in most cases, see comments inside
the code for exceptions). The previous implementation returned an error
instead (and aborted parsing with that), which is obviously not
"ignoring".
