[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
richard at dobson-i.net
Thu May 22 20:16:17 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. :)
Sorry but that is rubbish no one I have ever been in contact with has
ever used the term "Instant Messaging" or "IM" on its own without
qualification when saying things such as "I'll jabber you", "I'll IM
you on jabber" is the only sort of time people will use "IM", and your
continued assertion that the majority of people use the term "IM"
without qualification is rubbish from my perspective (and others it
seems from other replies) so please stop.
>> 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.
Sorry but your company not being comfortable with using the term
"Jabber" and because of that you want us to remove it from our name
seems selfish and counterproductive to me.
Most people know the technology as "Jabber" not XMPP the relatively new
term to arrive, plus there is the fact that Jabber != XMPP protocol
wise, XMPP is the basic protocol and Jabber is XMPP + all the extras on
top. Removing Jabber from our name will create much more confusion that
what there might be now IMO.
>> 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
Of course its a standard we are promoting, but my point was that from
the lay persons point of view the term "Jabber" is the system when you
compare it to such things as MSN and ICQ.
> 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.
I think its fine to change the name to "Jabber Standards Foundation"
since that will minimize the collateral confusion your suggestion
creates (the acronym even stays the same), changing Software to
Standards is perfectly adequate to more than clearly show our true
Do we really want to throw all the work we have done already promoting
"Jabber" (in terms of the name of the higher level protocol) ???
More information about the Members