[Foundation] JSF == Jabber Standards Foundation?

Matt Tucker matt at jivesoftware.com
Fri May 23 14:22:18 CDT 2003


>> 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.
> What are you smoking? Jabber is not a set of proprietary extensions to
> XMPP -- see previous post on the point of the JSF. 

Perhaps you missed my "however untrue it might be" clause? :) Remember, 
I'm talking about perception, not reality, and I'm advocating a semantic 
and not procedural change. But, I think it's true that the perception I 
outlined above can and does exist.

Let's have a quick thought experiment. How would JInc react to a new 
company that called itself "Jabber Software Inc."? I have a feeling that 
they wouldn't be too happy about it, just as they wouldn't be happy 
about advertising compliance with the "Tipic IM Basic 1.0" spec. To me, 
this means that Jabber is a proprietary and not generic term.

> 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.

I could accept this argument except for the fact that JInc has taken the 
Jabber name already. Comparisons to "web" have no relevance to the 
discussion since "web" is a viable open and generic term, whereas Jabber 
simply is not.


More information about the Members mailing list