[Members] Re: s/JSF/XSF/g

Sean Egan seanegan at google.com
Thu Nov 16 16:54:05 CST 2006


Hi, I'm Sean Egan, one of the new members. Thanks to everyone who
voted me in. My experience with XMPP comes from maintaining and
leading development of the Gaim client, and from working on the Google
Talk team at Google.

On 11/15/06, Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter at jabber.org> wrote:
> I think we have consensus on "XMPP Standards Foundation".

I think this is a really great, boring, name. We're a standards
organization, and standards organizations are supposed to have really
great boring names. I wholly support this change.

However, I'm concerned that we also need a good, non-trademarked,
self-explanatory name, that can be used to identify the technology
(rather than the protocol). "Jabber" is a great name, but it passes
only that of the three requirements.

This week, I started a threa^H^H^H^H^H flamewar on the Gaim
development mailing list about potentially adding a "Google Talk"
protocol option, in additon to the existing "Jabber" one. I proposed
this because it's suggested to me several times a week that Gaim
should consider supporting Google Talk, and I've grown tired of
responding. Other clients using Gaim's XMPP code, Adium and Meebo,
have already done the same.

Of course, this plan was met with resistance from people who didn't
want to special case Google Talk just because it was popular. I
certainly agree with this, but said it's all irrelevant if nobody's
going to use it. The ultimate compromise was to rename it something
like "XMPP (Google Talk)", which will hopefully have the added
benefits of letting people connect, and realizing it's equivilient to
XMPP (although there are still some concerns that people will get the
relationship confused... thinking XMPP is some form of Google Talk, or
Google Talk is a variation of XMPP, or some such).

At Google, I find that most of the partners interested in
interoperability are more interested in interoperating with Google
Talk than with some bigger, greater, thing, no doubt becaues they
and/or their customers don't care about protocols and have no idea
what XMPP is called. I would hate to see that, because of the weight
of the Google brand, the network of XMPP-capable entities becomes
known as the Google Talk network.

Of course, a lot of the burdon is on Google, to educate and increase
awareness to its users that Google Talk is part of some larger network
(and I'm, personally, working on that), but it would really help if
that larger network had a name.

SMTP has "e-mail." HTTP has "the web." What should XMPP have?

It's a shame "IM" is already taken.

-Sean.

PS Gaim calls itself an "Internet messenger," which is a pretty good
alternative to "Instant messenger," as it's similar enough that you
know what it means. However, it would be great to have a name that
encompassed more than just messaging, and was distinct enough from
"IM" that people could adapt to the concept of it being an
interoperable technology rather than a service


More information about the Members mailing list