[Foundation] Jabber vs XMPP Analysis

[Matt Tucker]

Ben,

> I don't think it is that bad to say. And I would say that the majority 
> of the people who do work based on JEP's and other documents put out by 
> the JSF say exactly that. That is what the JSF is about... building 
> Jabber solutions on top of the open XMPP protocol. I'm glad we could 
> finally agree on this point.

Without our proposal in place I have to say "built on the open Jabber 
protocol" and not "built on the open XMPP protocol" since the JSF 
currently defines the XMPP extensions it develops as "Jabber" and is 
planning on branding any compliance programs as Jabber (e.g. "Jabber IM 
Basic 1.0").

The reality is that there are a lot people that can't use the Jabber 
terminology (as explained in previous emails). There appear to also be a 
lot of people that would like to continue calling their solutions 
"Jabber". But, I think almost everyone is comfortable making the 
protocol terminology primarily based around XMPP, especially given the 
IETF process. That's really what our proposal is about -- to provide 
enough flexibility so that people that can't use "Jabber" and people 
that want to use it can still come together and work on the core XMPP 
protocol and extensions to it.

So, I'm not really sure that we're agreeing but it would be great if we 
are. :)

Regards,
Matt