[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player

[Matt Tucker]

Ryan,

Just to clarify my position -- I believe the IETF XMPP spec *is* a full 
basic IM protocol and many people will likely use it as such. Many of 
the extensions the JSF is creating are indeed vital for more 
full-featured IM systems, though.

> The IETF is working well for the core XMPP protocol.  And yes it does not
> implement a full IM system.  Which is why Jabber exists.  It uses the XMPP
> core protocol (much like a web site uses HTTP) and implements all of the
> things that you are talking about.  XMPP is ONLY the core protocol. 

One of our points all along has been that the HTTP/web comparison to 
XMPP/Jabber is flat out wrong if you are referring to "Jabber" as XMPP 
protocol extensions. When you refer to Jabber as the community and 
software using XMPP and extensions, then yes, the comparison makes 
sense. It's Protocol/System vs. Protocol/Protocol.

Think about it this way -- when extensions to HTTP came out such as the 
ability to compress the stream, did they invent a new name? No, they 
called it HTTP 1.1. Or, how about SMTP and ESMTP? Our position is that 
it's useful and extremely beneficial to clarify the community's language 
around the protocol so that all protocol terminology is focused around 
XMPP and "Jabber" can be left to serve other purposes, such as:

  * General community name
  * Name of commercial company
  * Name of various open source projects

There are many of us that feel we can't promote the Jabber terminology 
as long as it's so closely tied to a single company, but we can all work 
towards making the core protocol and extensions succeed.

> So to
> stop using the name of Jabber which defines a full IM system would be a
> mistake.  I am 100% against removing the name and use of Jabber from the JSF.

Fair enough, although I don't follow your logic. :)

-Matt