[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

[Ralph Meijer]

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 
> home".

'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 
> protocol".

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.

-- 
Groetjes,

Ralphm