[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu May 22 15:44:09 CDT 2003


Jason,

> +1 Although I'm still inclined to keep them closely associated
> (XMPP/Jabber). Similar to (SIP/SIMPLE). As Jabber is a well recognized
> brand and can help us market XMPP in the short term (Jabber is a proven
> technology where as SIMPLE is not, etc.)

The difference between SIP/SIMPLE and Jabber/XMPP is that SIMPLE is 
built on top of SIP, whereas Jabber and XMPP are essentially the same 
thing. To me, this is inherently confusing.

I have to disagree with you on the marketing point -- my experience in 
talking to customers is that they are largely already aware of XMPP as 
XMPP. The Jabber name just confuses them since they associate it 
directly with Jabber Inc and less with an open standard (as you mention 
below).

XMPP *will* be the term that everybody uses (does anyone feel 
differenty?). With that in mind, it seems like we should be crafting our 
message around that name rather than Jabber.

>>From what I understand, the IETF might not look kindly on using XMPP
>> as part of an organization name. Therefore, I'd propose using something
 >> more generic such as "Open IM Foundation"
> 
> We should ask them. XMPP appears to better define our scope and
> eliminates some of the issues with confusion between the Jabber, Inc.
> and the open protocol. I constantly meet people who think that the
> Jabber protocol is proprietary to Jabber Inc., and they have a
> difficulty decerning the difference between Jabber.com and Jabber.org

I would love to have XMPP in the name instead of something more generic. 
  Peter -- would you be someone that would know if this was even an 
option so that we could use it as a point for discussion?

Regards,
Matt




More information about the Members mailing list