Friendly XMPP Branding (Re: [Standards] XMPP vs. Jabber)
tim.hentenaar at securityconfidence.com
Fri Mar 9 01:47:48 UTC 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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
Security Confidence Corporation
E-Mail: Tim.Hentenaar at SecurityConfidence.com
Tel: +1 (513) 388-4500 Ext. 102
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards