[Members] s/JEP/XEP/g

Edwin Mons 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, 
>> 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.

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 ;)

Kind regards,
Edwin Mons

More information about the Members mailing list