[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
ben at blahr.com
Fri Jul 11 14:54:45 CDT 2003
Frankly, if I was Microsoft (seeing as how they have one of the most
widely used WebDAV implementations), I don't think I'd care either way.
And should Microsoft decide to drop SIMPLE in favor of Jabber, I don't
think they'd bat an eye.
Matt Jankowski said:
> 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."
>> 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
>> > 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
>> > 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"
>> 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
>> > 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
>> however, that in the interest of broader compatibility across all
>> "full-feature IM systems" based on XMPP, that those folks choose not to
>> >> So to
>> >> stop using the name of Jabber which defines a full IM system would be
>> >> mistake. I am 100% against removing the name and use of Jabber from
>> >> 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
>> 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
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members