[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?
stpeter at jabber.org
Fri May 23 12:38:32 CDT 2003
On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 10:55:01PM -0400, Matt Tucker wrote:
> XMPP is indeed the base protocol and there is obviously a lot more that
> the JSF defines on top of it. I don't have the perfect answer for what
> we might call that collection of extensions, but I'm just suggesting
> that it not be called "Jabber". Let's come up with terminology that
> makes it clear that this is the standard set of XMPP extensions defined
> by the XMPP community. That will give them a MUCH better chance of
> getting adopted by everyone that implements XMPP. However untrue it
> might be, I think that the natural perception of the JSF without a name
> change will be:
> XMPP == open IETF standard
> Jabber == proprietary extensions built on top of XMPP led by a company
> called Jabber Inc.
> Let's not let that happen.
What are you smoking? Jabber is not a set of proprietary extensions to
XMPP -- see previous post on the point of the JSF. You know what? JINC
came up with the term XMPP, too. Originally it was just something that
JINC people used (starting with Andre Durand, founder of Jabber.com). I
can tell you that no one in the Jabber community liked "XMPP" at all
when JINC started using it, and Jer and I strongly resisted submitting
our Internet-Drafts under the name XMPP as recently as last June.
However, we eventually saw that it was reasonable to use a nice
protocol-sounding name with the IETF, which is why we reluctantly agreed
to XMPP. Now that you know the genesis of XMPP, should we choose
something else again? Jabber predates JINC. Jabber will postdate JINC.
Maybe JINC will see the light and change its name, but you and I can't
make that happen. That's no reason for the community to "blink first"
and relinquish the work we've done for 4+ years in building Jabber.
> It's a bit scary sounding to adopt a totally new name, but now is the
> perfect oppurtunity. As XMPP becomes an IETF standard, the crucial
> debates will be had over which IM standards everyone should use. With
> the word "Jabber" in our name, I think the JSF's position in that debate
> will be very weakened. Let's take the bigger risk of a more radical name
> change, as I think the reward would be a truly fair, open community that
> can attract a large internet audience.
Um, the term jabber already *has* attracted a large internet audience.
Is the W3C's position weakened because it has "Web" in its name? No. The
role of the JSF is exactly analogous to that of the W3C. The W3C works
with document-centric technologies (HTML, XML, CSS, etc.), more and more
centered about XML documents. The JSF works with technologies for
streaming XML. We're the real-time equivalent of the W3C. And that
emerging world of real-time XML technologies is called jabber.
Jabber Software Foundation
More information about the Members