[standards-jig] Another JNG Thread - Trademark

Ben Schumacher ben at blahr.com
Mon Aug 19 16:49:36 UTC 2002


+1. Since we can't define what it is, why should we be trying to decide
what to cal it.

bs.

On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> Maybe we shouldn't worry too much about this until we move beyond the
> stage of talk. :)
>
> Peter
>
> --
> Peter Saint-Andre
> Jabber Software Foundation
> http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.html
>
> On Sun, 18 Aug 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.




More information about the Standards mailing list