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

Sean Egan seanegan at google.com
Sun Nov 19 12:50:43 CST 2006


On 11/19/06, Daniel Henninger <jadestorm at nc.rr.com> wrote:
> I typically tell people something along the lines of "Jabber speaks
> XMPP".

Right, Jabber is a great name. Unfortunately, it's trademarked, and
I'd prefer something more self-explanatory, akin to e-mail. "talk" or
some variation is currently my favorite name as something short,
untrademarkable, self-descriptive, and describing more than just
"messaging."

I like it because it solves all the problems I've been seeing. Gaim
users will see "Talk" in their list of available protocols. Those who
know all about Jabber and XMPP will recognize "Talk is the global
network of inter-connected XMPP servers," while someone who's only
familiar with Google Talk will see "Talk," and figure that's where to
put his Google Talk credentials.

Meanwhile, when other companies try to partner with Google, we can
tell them they can just claim themselves as compatible with "talk,"
rather than Google Talk, specifically (this is especially useful for
those who don't feel like obtaining a trademark license).

Typically, a big corporation would take their brand and append it to a
common, already understood word (MSN Messenger, iChat, etc.). I'm
suggesting we do the opposite to Google Talk and ride on the backs of
their marketing.

> 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.

Well, I actually brought the thread off-topic. I think renaming to XSF
is a great idea, and have no objections. I'm *additionally* suggesting
we move to adopt a common, normal-person-friendly name to describe the
service provided by XMPP, in such a way that public service providers
can all say they support "talk" and their users might be able to
better realize that any talk user can talk to any talk user.

This obviously isn't a cure-all that will drastically change the IM
landscape by itself, but I think it's an important prerequisite.

-Sean.

PS I've only discussed the concept of having a friendly "e-mail-like"
name to two other people at Google, and haven't yet mentioned using
"talk," as that name, so I can't guarantee Google will like the idea
as much as I do. The Google Talk trademark does, however, explicitly
state:

Disclaimer  	NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TALK"
APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

so we're certainly in the clear whether they approve or not. They may
just choose to fire me ;)


More information about the Members mailing list