[Members] Re: s/JSF/XSF/g
jadestorm at nc.rr.com
Sun Nov 19 13:07:15 CST 2006
On Nov 19, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Sean Egan wrote:
> On 11/19/06, Daniel Henninger <jadestorm at nc.rr.com> wrote:
>> I typically tell people something along the lines of "Jabber speaks
> 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
Oh you are right, I didn't think about the fact that it's
trademarked. I mean AIM and ICQ are too, but they are not referring
to multiple implementations of a service. (ie, it's not an AIM
server created by AOL or created by Joe's House of Chat, Inc.)
I like JadeTalk ;D kidding!
> 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.
Yeah, it's not too hard for them, is it.
AOL Instant Messenger
MSN Instant Messenger (or whatever it is now.. Live Messenger?)
Yahoo Instant Messenger
ICQ ... ... ... Interdimensional Chat Query? Ok I have no idea
about that one.
XIM? (pronounced ZIM!) That's kinda catchy. =)
XTalk. Sounds too much like an X11 application. lol
I don't know, but I see your point!
>> 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.
*laugh* Honestly, the off-topic conversation is a little more
interesting to chat about because, unless I've missed something,
everyone seems golden on s/JSF/XSF/g ;)
> This obviously isn't a cure-all that will drastically change the IM
> landscape by itself, but I think it's an important prerequisite.
> 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
> Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE "TALK"
> APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN
Interesting. That's cool of them! I mean it seems a little
ridiculous to try to reserve the right to the word Talk, but then
there's a lot of ridiculousness on that front. ;)
> so we're certainly in the clear whether they approve or not. They may
> just choose to fire me ;)
More information about the Members