[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
jabberfoundation at ralphm.ik.nu
Thu May 22 17:35:44 CDT 2003
Snipping a lot:
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 05:55:55PM -0400, Matt Tucker wrote:
> >On the other hand, "Jabber" was born for a broad audience. Both users and
> >technical people alike feel comfortable talking about Jabber, just as they
> >might feel comfortable talking about "email" or the "web".
> I don't think this is true. The broader term is "Instant Messaging" not
> "Jabber". Nobody will ever say, "Hey Sally, I'll jabber you when I get
'Instant Messaging' is a lenghty term. So are 'Electronic Mail' and 'The
World Wide Web'. People using msn (at least here in .nl) say "I'll msn you",
people using SMS don't say: "I'll send you a Short Message", they say:
"I'll send you an sms" or even "I'll sms you". And also, they call their
cellphone a gsm.
My point: people tend to use short names, and even make them into a verb. Iff
Jabber gets to be widespread, and marketed with that name, people probably will
say "I'll jabber you". What they probably won't ever say is: "I'll message
you intantly" or "I'll IM you" or "I'll Instant Message you" or "I'll send you an Instant Message".
> Yes, the world already has Jabber and associates the term with a
> commercial company. This is the point of confusion that I and others
> have brought up. XMPP needs to be the term that we brand as "an open IM
That would be not quite correct. XMPP is not IM. It's more (or less even if
you would just use the -core protocol and build apps on top of that).
> Heh, perhaps you're right, although I have no idea how XMPP will ever
> have anything to do with asynchronous communication. Email has that
> covered pretty well. :) I'm firmly of the opinion that "Jabber" will
> never supersede the term "Instant Messaging", though.
That's a dim prospect.
More information about the Members