[Members] Terminology (and about the Glossary on the wiki)

Guus der Kinderen guus.der.kinderen at gmail.com
Fri Feb 9 12:16:06 UTC 2018

Hi JC,

I largely agree with you, with one side note: the glossary does not define
"MUC room", but "MUC".

"MUC (Multi-User Chat)" in my opinion refers to the activity of chatting
with a number of users, while "MUC room" refers to the chatroom that you're
describing. The fact that the MUC protocol can be used for impromptu group
chats as well as to establish chatrooms illustrates this, I believe.



On 9 February 2018 at 12:40, JC Brand <jc at opkode.com> wrote:

> Hi folks
> I took a look at what the Glossary on the XSF wiki says for MUC rooms, and
> I
> would like to make the argument why I disagree with its recommended term
> of "group chat".
> The glossary is here: https://wiki.xmpp.org/web/Usability/Glossary
> Firstly, let me state that my proposed term is "Chatroom" spelled as one
> word
> (note, the glossary uses both "chat room" and "chatroom").
> Why one word? Because we have bathroom, bedroom, boardroom and classroom
> all
> spelled as a single word.
> In the cases where we have two separate words, like living room, we have
> the
> present participle (+ing) which seems to form a rule of keeping the words
> separate, or we have some ambiguity on whether we're talking about a room
> or
> simply space (e.g. "storage room").
> * So why "chatroom" and not "group chat"?
> I think there is a subtle difference between a "group chat" and a
> "chatroom".
> A group is a distinct entity. I guess like the ship of Theseus, the
> members of
> the group can all change over time, while the group is still the "same"
> group,
> but generally a group refers to a specific group of individuals.
> If all participants in a group chat leave the chat, is it still a group
> chat?
> A MUC room is in this sense not a group, especially if it's public and not
> restricted to members. Instead it's a place (i.e. room) in which people can
> enter and leave as they please.
> Even if all occupants leave the room, the room still exists as a place
> people
> can go back to.
> A chatroom can also contain two people, do two people form a group? No,
> they form a pair.
> With MIX it's perhaps a bit more ambiguous, although I still believe it
> should
> be "chatroom".
> * Why not something like "Channel"?
> I tend to think that applications like Slack use "Channel" to
> specifically distance themselves from the more old-school terminology.
> I might be wrong here, but this is my impression.
> I don't think the Jabber community needs to distance itself from such
> terms in order to brand itself.
> Everyone who's been on the internet since a while knows what a chatroom
> is. No
> need to repurpose other words, like "Channel" which is already a very
> ambiguous
> term and which probably doesn't translate very well into other languages.
> I'm interested to hear other people's thoughts on this and also what other
> languages use for this.
> Regards
> JC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20180209/9af05a29/attachment.html>

More information about the Members mailing list