[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu May 22 18:08:44 CDT 2003
> 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. :)
More information about the Members