[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"

__________________
Robert Quattlebaum
Mobile: +1(650)223-4974
Jabber: darco at deepdarc.com
eMail:  darco at deepdarc.com
www:    http://www.deepdarc.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.jabber.org/pipermail/standards/attachments/20060518/84962a77/attachment.html>


More information about the Standards mailing list