[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu May 22 18:08:44 CDT 2003


Ralph,

> 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".

Yep, people say "I'll IM you" in the US too. But, it's ludicrous to 
propose that people will ever say "I'll jabber you". JInc won't ever 
"beat" the major IM networks like AOL, MSN, etc, and no commercial 
company will ever want use the term "Jabber" as long as Jinc does. So, 
the best hope for everyone is to promote XMPP as a viable, open standard.

How many people seriously care about the term "Jabber"? I care much more 
about the community, the protocol itself, and the vision for an open IM 
solution. If these three things are better served by an organization 
that doesn't contain the name "Jabber", as I firmly believe they are, 
that is a very good reason to change our name.

> 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).

I agree, but we need to be very careful about saying this to the outside 
world. XMPP is a protocol that is focused on IM even though it can be 
used for many other things. I think the right message is "a very 
flexible instant messaging protocol" rather than "you can use this for 
anything!". Once we win the war as the dominant IM standard, then we can 
move on to officially tackling other problem domains. :)

Regards,
Matt




More information about the Members mailing list