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

Tim Hentenaar tim.hentenaar at securityconfidence.com
Fri Mar 9 01:47:48 UTC 2007


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op Thu, 8 Mar 2007 16:49:25 -0800
schreef Justin Karneges <justin-keyword-jabber.093179 at affinix.com>:

> I think this depends on the name we select.  There is a small
> movement to call XMPP simply "IM" (e.g. IM Address, IM server), which
> the Coversant and Psi projects are already considering.  It is kind
> of a rename, but not really.

I think that simply calling it "IM" adds a bit of ambiguity, even if
one blatantly labels it "IM (XMPP)" or something similar. Any sort of
"rename" would only confuse users IMHO.

> 
> Similarly, "Standard IM Address" (again, just an idea) isn't a
> full-on rename, but rather more of a show of confidence. :)  But with
> just enough of an edge that you know it isn't AIM we're talking about.

How would and end user know what what network "Standard IM Address"
would be? (Especially multi-protocol chat client users, or end-users in
general.)

- -- 
Tim Hentenaar
Security Confidence Corporation

E-Mail: Tim.Hentenaar at SecurityConfidence.com
Tel:    +1 (513) 388-4500 Ext. 102
Web:    http://www.SecurityConfidence.com

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFF8LzFK3VK1q6QiPARArybAKCuoJi6BJZ0VaLuik5PWd7hggK72wCfa99j
kz4i0KhK6BRGocWzSq58wWI=
=NKTw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


More information about the Standards mailing list