Re: [DotGNU]Help with Jabber

[Charlie Carnow]

<snip>
> Should Jabber keep promoting itself as an open IM system? Or ditch that
> in favor of general XML routing like what DotGNU is considering using?
> Should we take the message directly to the masses, or to corporate
> business, or to project developers?
</snip>

I think Jabber should split into 2 different protocols which essentially
are the same but have different names, Jabber should be the name of the
IM system, as Jabber is already widely known as such, and personally
Jabber sounds like an IM system. With one of Microsoft's programmers
suggesting HTML isn't enough for RPC (I forget the programmer's name,
and where this was suggested, I think at a XML conference) and
Microsoft's hint at a peer-to-peer part of .NET it would be
great if we could just pop up and say: "We've had a perfect protocol for
RPC, for a long time it's called [whatever we want Jabber to be called in
it's XML routing form] and DotGNU uses it in our Peer-to-Peer framework
not HTML." If we could have the element of suprise like when Apache
started and Microsoft hadn't realized that the WWW already had an
application we could make them eat their own words.