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

Sean Egan seanegan at google.com
Mon Nov 20 16:26:49 CST 2006

On 11/20/06, Remko Tronçon <remko at el-tramo.be> wrote:
> In an ideal world, we shouldn't really think about the practical
> issues, but I let's face it: changing the name Jabber to something
> else from one day to the other is something that won't happen for
> practical reasons

It's true that this won't happen overnight, and even if it did, it
won't magically solve anything. However, while we're trying to phase
out the name "Jabber" from protocol-related stuff, it probably makes
sense to phase it out from "marketing"-related stuff at the same time.

> Maybe we just have to let evolution do its work here. Whenever I talk
> to someone non-technical, I catch myself asking whether they use
> 'Google Talk', and try to convince them to do so. It's the only chance
> I have to get them from some other proprietary network onto XMPP. I
> think I even heard them abbreviate it as 'Talk', so it is a catchy
> word I suppose. Maybe we should let things run their course, and let
> Talk and Jabber coexist, and see what happens socially.

Mostly because I'm seeing it happen already (and obviously, my
perspective is skewed), I'm worried that that evolution might happen
as you seem to imply: non-technical users will come to think of it as
"Google Talk," and the rest of us will have to call it that just to be
understood. I like a talk-based name as opposed to a chat-based name,
because it allows us to use that evolution to our advantage.

More information about the Members mailing list