Is the discontinuous Raviart-Thomas element redundant?

[miklos1]

FIAT currently has

• a continuous Raviart-Thomas element,
• a discontinuous Raviart-Thomas element, and
• a generic DiscontinuousElement (UFL term: BrokenElement) that makes any given element discontinuous.

Is (was) the discontinuous Raviart-Thomas element any different than a "discontinuized" Raviart-Thomas element? If not, perhaps it is better to remove the discontinuous Raviart-Thomas element, especially in light of the recent changes to RT nodes, which would make DRT unnecessarily different.

Such a removal would, of course, necessitate a small change to the form compiler's FIAT interface, so that the "Discontinuous Raviart-Thomas" family name be translated to DiscontinuousElement(RaviartThomas(cell, degree, variant)).