[Standards] Why XMPP (and XSF)

Steve Kille steve.kille at isode.com
Tue Jan 17 09:19:17 UTC 2017


The "Easy XMPP" thread seems to have shifted topics and I wanted to share
some thoughts.

I am passionate about open standards.   It seems to me that real time
messaging and presence need an open standard.    XMPP is the winner in my
view.

Federation is central to an open IM standard.    Need to provide a service
in which multiple systems from multiple vendors can co-exist to provide a
coherent end user service.

XSF, to me, is primarily about promoting the standard.

Of course, a standard without implementation and deployment is not of use to
anyone.    So XSF should promote and encourage implementation and service,
but this is not the raison d'etre of XSF.

While XMPP is a big step forward from its precursors such as IRC, the
current set of standards is behind the curve when you compare the potential
capabilities of an XMPP implementation to the state of the art from
proprietary implementations (e.g., Microsoft Teams).

A central task of XSF is to address this, which is why MIX, BIND2 and other
developments are key work.

Open standards facilitate new players to compete against the established
one.   Google used XMPP to help compete against AOL and MSN.   Now Google is
a lead player, open standards matter less.

A strong XMPP base standard set can help new players to compete.    This can
and should be a mix of commercial implementations and open source.

New clients with excellent capability and UX are a necessary component of
success.    Those building these clients are likely to be involved with XSF,
but I don't think XSF should be taking responsibility for this.



Steve



More information about the Standards mailing list