[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Thu May 22 19:34:32 CDT 2003


> 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).

Obviously nobody says "I'll instant message you", but I think the vast 
majority of people say "I'll IM you". Anyway, I have no idea how we 
started the discussion since it has nothing to do with using the term 
Jabber vs. XMPP in our name. :)

> 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.

Let's pretend that you've never heard the term Jabber and don't have a 
personal fondness for it. Now, let's say I give you the choice of two 
terms for an open internet standard:

  Term X: used as the name of a commercial company.
  Term Y: not used as the name of a commercial company, adopted by the 
IETF as a standard.

Now, which term do you think has a better chance at being adopted by the 
larger internet community and by other commercial companies? This is 
really the thinking that we need to apply to the JSF since 99.9% of the 
world hasn't heard of XMPP/Jabber (the protocol) and we hope to 
introduce it to them.

> 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.

We're a community that promotes a standard, not a system. The point of 
all our efforts is that end users will continue to use AIM, ICQ, etc, 
but underneath it all will be the protocol we're developing and promoting.

I think a name change for our organization that gets us away from Jabber 
helps us to achieve that goal and the vision that you, Matt, Peter, and 
other have talked about. I still haven't seen any really credible 
arguments as to how the opposite is true, except a debate over the 
marketing worthiness of the term "Jabber" in the short term.


More information about the Members mailing list