[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Fri Jul 11 14:31:25 CDT 2003


Matt Tucker said:
> 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.

Then take the example of WebDAV. It is a set of protocol extensions to
HTTP that provide the ability to do web-based distributed authoring and
versioning. In the same way, Jabber is a set of protocol extensions to
XMPP that create, what you have called, a "full-featured IM system." Both
HTTP and XMPP are complete and usable protocols without the addition of
WebDAV and Jabber, and there is nothing preventing any users from taking
them and using them as is.

> 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:

This about it this way -- when extensions to HTTP came out such as
distributed authoring and version, did they invent a new name? Yes, they
called it WebDAV. Our position is that it's useful and extremely
beneficial to continue the community's position that the set of protocol
extensions which build upon XMPP to create a "full-feature IM system" are
called Jabber, and the group of that designs, builds and promotes these
protocol enhancements is the Jabber Software Foundation.

> 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.

There is certainly nothing preventing folks who feel that they cannot
promote the Jabber terminology from creating their out community, and
their own set of enhancements to XMPP. Microsoft has often taken broadly
used protocols, and extended them to serve their purposes better. I hope,
however, that in the interest of broader compatibility across all
"full-feature IM systems" based on XMPP, that those folks choose not to do
so.

>> 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. :)

And I don't follow yours. But, as you said, we will vote and we will move
on. I can only hope that this time we truly move on. This issue has been
brought up on several occasions by members of the community, and every
previous community decision to move on has, apparently, been ignored.

Cheers,

bs.



More information about the Members mailing list