On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:12 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <[email protected]>wrote:
> We were talking about "Jabber" for communication with end users about > getting an IM account. Most end users (and even people at technical > conference) still call it Jabber. I see no reason to fight that > forever. Introduce it as Jabber or "you might know it as Jabber" but > then talk about XMPP. That's what I usually do. > > I find it interesting that according to Google trends, although "xmpp server" and "jabber server" are roughly equal, "jabber client" is searched for roughly twice as much as "xmpp client". So if we're purely aiming at end users wanting IM accounts, then yes, Jabber seems to be the obvious choice. I think this document essentially aims at server administrators (who apparently use either equally), but I suspect that the whole TLS thing would be most useful if it were something server admins could brag about to their users; that suggests using the Jabber mark. > And I really don't want to have this discussion forever. > > Nope. But as I said, I think this is going to create a name for a network of servers providing a specific level of security. In that event, we should probably check it's the most effective name. I'm not terribly keen on having to tell users that they should register a jabber id on the jabber registration server, which'll register them onto an XMPP server on the XMPP network. Using one name throughout seems more sensible. But I can deal with that - I'm really just flagging that this is the time to make that choice. Once this "goes out", as it were, it'll be a bit late to try and rebrand (again). Dave.
_______________________________________________ JDev mailing list Info: http://mail.jabber.org/mailman/listinfo/jdev Unsubscribe: [email protected] _______________________________________________
