ian.paterson at clientside.co.uk
Sat Aug 19 10:19:18 CDT 2006
> I have not seen convincing reasons to rename them into, for example, XEPs.
XEP is far more descriptive. These protocols extend a protocol we've all
agreed to call XMPP.
If we use XEP then we won't have to explain to the newbies why the
authorittive extensions are called JEPs not XEPs.
> I think it is important to make sure that people who only come in
> contact with the term XMPP regard the JSF as /the/ authoritive entity
> for defining XMPP protocol extensions
Yes. Changing the name to XEP can only help us to 'position' our protocols
in that way.
And by claiming the XEP name (and the associated numbering sequence) for its
protocols, the JSF will disuade other corporations or organisations from
using it in the future.
More information about the Members