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

Daniel Henninger jadestorm at nc.rr.com
Sun Nov 19 11:47:48 CST 2006


I agree, XMPP isn't really catchy for saying what you want to talk on/ 
connect to/etc.  I do agree that this organization should be the XSF,  
but I think Jabber is a good name for the ... service?  Like you  
don't go around saying you are going to fire up your HTTP/HTML/ 
whatever browser, you typically say your "Web Browser".

I typically tell people something along the lines of "Jabber speaks  
XMPP".

Just like AIM and ICQ, you don't go around connecting to OSCAR, you  
connect to AIM or ICQ.  =)

I could almost see something along the lines of this for all of the  
server implementations:
[insert server name here] is an XMPP-complient Jabber server.
or something like that.  Of course Jabber more or less refers only to  
the chat pieces (IMO).  So you could also have an XMPP-complient  
calendaring service.

Not sure if I got off topic there, but lets assume my distinction  
above... JSF implies that we only focus on the chat functionality of  
XMPP whereas XSF implies that we focus on the entire protocol.

Daniel

On Nov 19, 2006, at 12:19 PM, Tomasz Sterna wrote:

> Dnia 17-11-2006, pią o godzinie 15:45 +0100, Jesus Cea napisał(a):
>> Putting XMPP as a prominent protocol name (with a very small and
>> "light
>> grey" text like "eg. Google Talk, jabber, livejournal, etc.")  
>> would be
>> the way to go.
>
> The problem is, that this XMPP-thingy is realy scary for end-users.
> Is it even pronounceable? ;-)
>
> "I'll catch you later on ... XMPP?"
>
>
> -- 
> Tomasz Sterna
> Xiaoka Grp.



More information about the Members mailing list