[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
jankowski at bigwhoop.org
Fri Jul 11 13:48:42 CDT 2003
Ben, great example.
Let's say you were a commercial entity considering using WebDAV in one of
your products and donating money to the "webdav community" -- would you be
more or less inclined to do so if there was a company named "WebDAV, Inc."
that you would be competing with?
On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, Ben Schumacher wrote:
> 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 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.
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members