<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.3 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> </style><meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.3 (Win32)"><style type="text/css">  </style> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Peter has made valid points as seen below my message.  What are the differences between branding and marketing.  Branding is an association of a name to quality, offerings, and perceptions in the market space.  Marketing is a consumer centric message to educate the market and differentiate the brand from competitors or similar offerings.<br><br>XMPP is HTTP as instant message (IM) is to webpage<br><br>I like data so let's slice it differently :-><br><br>XMPP is HTTP as Jabber is to the world wide web<br><br>Now I can go on and on about this as the discussion list has..it could be sliced differently in explanation till the cows come home.<br><br>So The foundation is called the XMPP foundation historically the XML like language used to exchange the information was called Jabber. Ahhaa a historical terminology to identify the data exchange language. Easy solution.<br><br>Icon:<br>I truly believe the light bulb should be historically associated with XMPP as a synonymous identity.  Chat/IM/Jabber/XMPP clients can use what ever icon they choose but to maintain consistency and consumer branding stick with the "light bulb" graphic.  The XSF can have their brand as it identifies the group that ensures quality and constancy for the data exchange language.<br><br>Consumer name of icon: Jabber<br>Technical name: XMPP<br><br><br>As perception grows people will without a doubt associate the for profit business Jabber, Inc. with XMPP, fully disclosed at <a href="http://www.jabber.org/book/export/html/259">http://www.jabber.org/book/export/html/259</a> on it's usage which is fair and just.</p> <p>Stay consistent. Don't complex this issue with the usage of immaterial terms such as IM or Chat, users know these terms are the same, let  them use it as they see fit because they're understood clearly by the user.  Don't make them think.<br><br>-Chris Johnston<br><br>p.s. the "Don't make them think" statement is the reason why Idiocracy is an accurate depiction of the future. Importantly a key statement in marketing and GUI. </p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><br> </p> <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Peter Saint-Andre <<a href="mailto:stpeter@stpeter.im">stpeter@stpeter.im</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> But the official icon for applications should be the jabber bulb, or the xmpp X? should the apps be renamed from "jabber client" to "xmpp client"?<br> <br> I think that most apps use the bulb and are called "jabber client" but pidgin doesn't, wich is a bit confusing.<br> </blockquote> <br> IMHO:<br> <br> Jabber is to XMPP as the Web is to HTTP.<br> <br> Geeks talk about HTTP, but end users talk about web browsers and web sites.<br> <br> Geeks talk about XMPP, but end users talk about Jabber clients (or just IM clients).<br> <br> Therefore I think it is best for end-user clients to use the term "Jabber". This is more user-friendly and less geeky for Aunt Tillie.<br> <br> That said, I am an individualist and I value decentralization, so if particular IM clients want to call it XMPP instead of Jabber, that's their business. But I reserve the right to boycott them. :)<br><font color="#888888"> <br> Peter<br> <br></font></blockquote></div><br>