[Standards-JIG] Re: Public Federated Jabber Network
Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr.
darco at deepdarc.com
Thu May 18 19:58:07 UTC 2006
I personally believe that the word "Federated" is important enough to
include, as it gets the point across that no single entity is in
total control. I have found that one of the most difficult issues
when telling people about jabber is getting across the idea that is
not a single service controlled by one entity. I believe this
nomenclature will make this more clear.
I would rather "Public Jabber Network" be the informal reference, and
PFJN be the formal one. I personally feel that "Public Federated
Jabber Network" is no more clunky than "Public Switched Telephone
Network", but that's just my opinion.
On May 18, 2006, at 12:18 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. wrote:
>> In a blog post I'll be making tomorrow, I'll be coining the phrase
>> "Public Federated Jabber Network"...
>> Any thoughts?
> Only that "Federated" is a bit clunky in that phrase. It doesn't flow
> very nicely.
> +1 for stpeter's "Public Jabber Network"
Jabber: darco at deepdarc.com
eMail: darco at deepdarc.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Standards