Friendly XMPP Branding (Re: [Standards] XMPP vs. Jabber)

Chris Mullins chris.mullins at coversant.net
Thu Mar 8 23:19:12 UTC 2007


I vote for "SoapBox Address" or "SoapBox ID"! :)

(oh, the Irony...)

--
Chris Mullins

-----Original Message-----
From: standards-bounces at xmpp.org [mailto:standards-bounces at xmpp.org] On
Behalf Of Justin Karneges
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 3:02 PM
To: XMPP Extension Discussion List
Subject: Friendly XMPP Branding (Re: [Standards] XMPP vs. Jabber)

On Thursday 08 March 2007 12:15 pm, JD Conley wrote:
> We're also pretty presumptuous and say "IM Address" instead of "Jabber
ID".

We're considering the same.  Although because of the fragmented IM
situation, 
there will still be times when we have to explain what we conform to.
When 
you say "Email address", no one is going to ask you "Which email?"
However, 
with "IM Address", we do need to be prepared for the question: "Which
IM?"

I wonder...  can we come up with a better answer than XMPP?  XMPP is
hard to 
say, hard to listen to, and not very informative by name alone.

What about...

Standard IM? ('Standard' sounds a bit stuffy)
Universal IM? (sounds like trillian)
Generic IM? (not very interesting, but better than "XMPP Account
(Jabber)")
World IM?
XIM? (I kind of like this one, but I'd prefer the X not stand for XMPP)

"Standard IM" is terribly boring, but it also doesn't sound like an IM 
flavor-of-the-week (which XIM might be mistaken as).

And on that note, Jabber is also often mistaken as yet-another-IM.  I
have a 
very nice concise answer for this:

Them: "What the heck is Jabber?"
Me: "Jabber is the fifth and final IM system."

It's good to be clear about where we stand.

-Justin



More information about the Standards mailing list