[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player

[Stephen Lee]

None of us are anywhere near the size of MS and I disagree, I think they
would refer to it as XMPP not jabber. The question was not what MS would
do.. The question is how you would feel.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: members-admin at jabber.org [mailto:members-admin at jabber.org] On
Behalf Of Ben Schumacher
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:55 PM
To: members at jabber.org
Subject: Re: [Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player


Matt-

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.

Cheers,

bs.

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?
>
> -Matt
>
> 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.
>>
>> >> 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.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Members mailing list
>> Members at jabber.org http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
>

_______________________________________________
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members