[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Richard Dobson richard at dobson-i.net
Thu May 22 19:05:51 CDT 2003


> 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".

Sorry to correct you here but this is completely the reverse me and 
also everybody I know hardly ever would use the term "I'll Instant 
Message you later when I get home" we very often say one of the 
following "I'll jabber you later" or very often (especially with non 
tech people "I'll MSN you later" or "I'll ICQ you later" (always 
referring to the system).

> The "broad audience" we need to appeal to is those that will use and 
> implement the protocol. I think compelling arguments have been made 
> that those implementing the protocol (especially commercial people) 
> only want to use the term XMPP. My kid brother who uses AIM to chat 
> with his friends is not someone that the JSF is trying to reach. The 
> executive at AOL who might someday be forced to choose an open 
> protocol for their IM network is.
>
>> It's a
>> friendly, well chosen term.  It would be foolish to blanket the world 
>> with XMPP when it already has Jabber.
>
> 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".

Me and everyone I know (including non tech people and non jabber people 
:) ) associate the word jabber with the tool itself not JInc, in-fact 
the non tech people do not even know that JInc exist, so the argument 
that non jabber or non tech people automatically associate the word 
jabber with JInc is not really true from my experience and im sure im 
not the only person.

> This is true, but it doesn't matter. No commercial entity wants to use 
> the term Jabber because there is another commercial company that is 
> already using it and that has established a solid brand around it.

So... how does the reasoning that "no commercial entity wants to use 
the terms Jabber" apply to us? we are not really a commercial entity, 
so we should use what we feel is right.

> 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.

But as noted above no one really uses the term "Instant Messaging" when 
talking to others, they refer to the system they are using like jabber 
or msn or icq, never instant messaging because its too general, you 
could only use the term instant messaging once there is no distinction 
between the different systems and there is full interoperability, 
otherwise when someone was talking to you and used the term instant 
messaging how would you know which system to use to contact them.

:)

Richard





More information about the Members mailing list