[Foundation] thoughts from another commercial player
srlee at myjabber.net
Fri Jul 11 14:59:19 CDT 2003
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.
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
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." 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
>> > 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" are called Jabber, and the group of that designs, builds
>> and promotes these protocol enhancements is the Jabber Software
>> > 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 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
>> >> 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
>> 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 http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/members
> Members mailing list
> Members at jabber.org
Members mailing list
Members at jabber.org
More information about the Members