[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player

Constantin Nickonov Nickonov at jabber.com
Fri Jul 11 11:34:16 CDT 2003

Matt, most Americans speak English and Brazilians -- Portugese. And few
outsiders have difficulty understanding the link between nationality and
official language. At the same time, Brazilians have plenty of dialects. So,
just think of Jabber as the preferred dialect extension of XMPP. As has been
stated many times throughout this discussion, the IETF is an effective, but
very slow vehicle -- the JSF is much more nimble, and (used to be) much less
encumbered by petty politics.

I understand that it must be very frustrating for you to defend your
position on so many fronts. That's probably the reason for so much
repetition and circular logic in your posts. But, from what I've seen,
you're absolutely unwilling to budge from your original idea -- all the
while expecting a majority of the JSF to support you. Perhaps you could try
to better understand where some of the opposition to your proposal is coming

You're asking the community to change so your life is potentially made
easier, but in a way that damages the community.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Tucker [mailto:matt at jivesoftware.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 10:15 AM
> To: members at jabber.org
> Subject: Re: [Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members

More information about the Members mailing list