[Standards] What about several XMPP logos to indicate features ?

Emmanuel Gil Peyrot linkmauve at linkmauve.fr
Sat Dec 26 18:35:38 UTC 2015


On Sat, Dec 26, 2015 at 12:41:13PM +0100, Goffi wrote:
> G'day,
> 
> I was not sure if standards@ is the right place to talk about this, so tell
> me if I should move the topic elsewhere.
> 
> Today as you all know, XMPP is used for many things, far beyond instant
> messaging alone. I think explaining all the low level protocol things is not
> interesting for the non technical end user, but XMPP can be used to show
> compatibility between software (especially the logo).
> 
> So here is my point: it would make sense to have several variants of the
> XMPP logo, to indicate which features a software can do, the same way as
> creative commons logo show instantly what the license allows (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_license).
> 
> I would see a logo for instant messaging, one for file transfer, one for
> PubSub, etc. This way a user can know if a software do what he wants, if it
> will be compatible with this other software its friend is using, etc.
> 
> What do you think about it ?

There is a proposed logo for Jingle, apparently under CC-BY-SA but
without any source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JingleLogo.png

Other similar logos could be created on the same theme, reusing the
colors of the XMPP logo and looking like the feature they are meant to
embody.

Now to the actual way of using the logos, would that be tied to some
kind of conformance suite?  How would you explain to the user that e.g.
JingleFT :3 isn’t compatible with JingleFT :4 (or any other versionned
XEP really)?  Is that marketing thing worth it for the user, in the
end?

> 
> Thanks
> Goffi

-- 
Emmanuel Gil Peyrot


More information about the Standards mailing list