[Standards] Re: [OT] UIs for User Confusion

Dave lists+jabber_standards at bigfatdave.com
Sun Mar 11 10:23:39 UTC 2007

Look, I'm aware that many guys were quite adamant about the JSF changing its
name to avoid implicitely advertising Jabber, Inc.  I don't suppose I'd be
terribly happy to be competing with a guy I was forced to advertise because he
had the same name as my favorite protocol.  (I'm no longer in the XMPP camp, so
I can't say for sure.)  I never blamed anybody for the s/Jabber/XMPP/g that
happened as a result.  Besides, XMPP is a more descriptive term than Jabber.  My
usage of the term "Jabber" comes out of force of habit, and should not be
regarded as any type of endorsement of "Jabber" over "XMPP" (or any other name,
for that matter).

My comment wasn't about confusing users by calling Jabber XMPP, though.  It was
about confusing users by trying to pass Jabber off as just plain IM, which has
the linguistic implication that all the "other" listings aren't IM, which is
flat out wrong, and is therefore calculated to confuse users.  (Every user who
emails you that your stupid client can't login to his screenname was harmed by
your lie.)

 - Dave

On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:08:33AM +0100, Alexander Gnauck wrote:
> Dave wrote:
> >Yes, let's have a competition to see who can lose the most users by
> >trying to misinform them.  (The sad thing is, I don't know if you'd
> >even win such a competition: practically anybody at the IETF (and plenty
> >outside of the IETF) could easily make a run for it.)  Those who don't
> >value their users' freedom of thought will eventually lose their users.
> >Truth has a tendency to get out, sooner or later.  Maybe it'll only happen
> >when it's time to replace Jabber/XMPP/whatever, sometime in the future
> >(possibly with a pubsub-based system, in order to take advantage of IP
> >multicasting, or whatever), and somebody suddenly realizes that some nut
> >at the JSF renamed Jabber into "IM" many years ago for the sole purpose
> >of confusing users.
> nobody of us will confuse users. But what we currently do is confusing 
> the users, because every software calls the Jabber-ID different. And not 
> only the Jabber-ID.
> We all like the term Jabber, we also discussed this on DevCon 2 weeks 
> ago. But there are issues with it. I don't wanna repeat them again, 
> because we have discussed this topic countless times since early 2001 on 
> different lists. If somebody is new to the lists or this topic then do a 
> search and read the previous discussions.
> Fact is that there are commercial companies but also individuals and 
> open source developers which will never use the term Jabber with the 
> current situation. Which means there is currently no way to standardise 
> it and get rid of the confusions with the term Jabber.
> Alex

More information about the Standards mailing list