[Foundation] Jabber vs XMPP Analysis

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Sun Jul 13 16:28:27 CDT 2003

Matt Tucker said:
> 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.

The reality is that there are a lot of people that choose not to use the
Jabber terminology. As I stated in my previous email, the JSF builds
Jabber solutions on top of XMPP. XMPP is what is being developed by the
IETF, Jabber is what is being developed by the JSF. The extensions to XMPP
that you reference so regularly is what make up Jabber, and I think I have
offered compelling evidence (and references) of other Internet protocols
that do exactly what we are doing here.

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

I'm afraid we aren't, then. I thought you had finally come to realize what
we (the JSF) and we (the Jabber community) commonly refer to as Jabber. I
was hoping that you had decided to join our community, instead of trying
to divide it, but I guess its clear you feel that our community does not
fit you business needs. This saddens me greatly, but I hope that others in
our community will continue to see the value of us all working together,
as a team.



More information about the Members mailing list