Another +1 to XMPP-ID. 1. The protocol standard is XMPP (and not Jabber) - all our efforts should be behind the "XMPP" bandwagon. 2. There is atleast one commercial vendor with Jabber in their name. There are also popular opensource servers with jabber in their name. In that sense, jabber-id creates more confusion about product affinity rather than clarity and neutrality. 3. On the URI vs ID issues - people who know enough to add headers also know enough to tell the difference. Use of jabber-id is as much "sentimental" than historical but if the group is going to follow a convention, I'd say use XMPP My 2 xents. -Ernest Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jesus Cea wrote: > Robert B Quattlebaum, Jr. wrote: >>> Any particular reason why we are using "Jabber-ID" instead of "XMPP-ID"? > > +1 Are you saying +1 to his question or +1 to XMPP-ID? :-) I see several reasons for Jabber-ID: 1. Jabber-ID is historical. In other words, people recognize "Jabber-ID" but they don't recognize "XMPP-ID", see for instance documents such as <http:>. 2. XMPP-ID might get confused with XMPP URI. We don't want people to include full XMPP URIs here (or at least I don't think we do, since the processing rules are a lot more complicated for full URIs). Peter - -- Peter Saint-Andre Jabber Software Foundation http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEBe3GNF1RSzyt3NURAkq1AJ9RyHUouMtBXvBy020UkviSitiEHQCfQfXn 3uaEnk/wTGL3njUr6MeStnY= =O0lj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- </http:></blockquote>