jsf at edwinm.ik.nu
Sun Aug 20 04:57:43 CDT 2006
Ian Paterson wrote:
> Ralph wrote:
>> I have not seen convincing reasons to rename them into, for example,
> 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.
Just my two cents: I tend to agree to the "Web is to HTTP as Jabber is
to XMPP" analogy. Jabber is just too nice a name (and too well known)
to discard just like that.
Changing the name JEP to XEP wouldn't help anybody, I think. Yes, you
have the link between XMPP and the enhancement in the name, but why
should that be relevant?
We shouldn't overclaim the X-prefix, that's almost as lame as
lowercasing every first letter, and capping the next ;)
More information about the Members