[standards-jig] Another JNG Thread - Trademark

Sameer Verma sverma at sfsu.edu
Sun Aug 18 20:38:56 UTC 2002


Adam Theo wrote:

> Hi all.
>
> With all this talk on Jabber NextGen recently, I've been wondering 
> exactly how we should plan on referring to it in the future. Will it 
> actually be called "Jabber Next Generation", with namespace prefixes 
> of "jng", perhaps? Or will it be "Jabber 2.0" as I've been using? Or 
> something different, not named after Jabber?
>
> I used to think that it should be "Jabber 2.0", since Jabber NextGen 
> is too code-name-ish. I used to hate the name "Jabber", but have becom 
> rather fond of the silly name. But as some have pointed out, the 
> resulting generic transport protocol would *not* be Jabber, and would 
> likely only confuse people who are not involved with the development. 
> So, I'm thinking that a completely new name should be in order. We 
> should begin discussing it now, I think.
>
A lot depends on what image "Jabber" conjures up currently. If all 
people can relate to is IM, then JNG should really have a non-jabber 
name. One of the images that come to my mind when I think about Jabber 
(or IM in general) is a lot of frogs in monsoon :-)

Ribbit...ribbit...ribbit...
Sameer

-- 
Sameer Verma, Ph.D.
Asst. Professor of Information Systems
San Francisco State University
San Francisco CA 94132 USA
http://verma.sfsu.edu/ 






More information about the Standards mailing list