05-29-2004, 12:00 AM
|
|
Magi
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,186
|
|
Tim Berners-Lee: Just Say "NO" to .mobi Domains
"Last March, several leading companies from the mobile industry -- including Microsoft, HP, and Nokia -- requested that a Top Level Domain (TLD) be created for web sites that are intended solely for handhelds and smartphones. Recently, Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the technology behind the World Wide Web, came out in opposition to this plan. At the time it made the request to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the group of companies said they hoped a '.mobi' TLD will create business opportunities for companies servicing mobile customers. They also hoped it will spur the development of compelling new mobile services and applications.
However, the W3C Technical Advisory Group, of which Mr. Berners-Lee is a member, has released a statement that says, in part, 'There are major problems with these proposals. There are costs in general to creating any new top level domain. There are specific ways in which the '.mobi' breaks the Web architecture of links, and attacks the universality of the Web.' Rather than creating special versions of web site appropriate for different devices, the W3C Technical Advisory Group would prefer that all pages be able to handle any type of device. According to it, this can be done through the use of Style Sheets and a variety of new methods just coming into use for the client to be able to tell the server what its capabilities are. These will allow the server to only send content appropriate for the client."
What do you think? Are there merits to creating a .mobi TLD that outweigh the damage the W3C describes, or should everyone design pages that work on all devices?
|
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 12:07 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,055
|
|
I couldn't agree more with Tim Berners Lee. The internet is a "world wide web" that should be easily accessible by any type of device from anywhere in the world. Trying to separate the "mobile internet" from the "regular internet" would be a bad idea in my opinion.
I get very annoyed when I read stories about how Microsoft doesn't want to follow the W3's web standards. It bothers me that a company with such a high browser market share is trying to prevent other browsers from competing with them. The world wide web is a global resource and shouldn't be tailored to any specific browser or platform.
|
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 12:16 AM
|
|
Editorial Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,411
|
|
Why should I have to go to www.pocketpcthoughts.mobi when on my PPC and www.pocketpcthoughts.com on my desktop. Jason and company have to create two formats in either case. Let him figure out what I've got and deliver the right stuff 
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
|
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 12:37 AM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,819
|
|
Were does it end? Should anyone typing james.fee into the address bar take you to my homepage? 0X
|
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 01:09 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 225
|
|
I think I disagree with the .mobi TLD as well. It will force people to create two versions of their websites; I believe many may just decide it's not worth the trouble. In addition, I believe the average user would just get confused if a website looks different and perhaps offers less features if it is viewed on a mobile device instead of a desktop. Most people don't want to bother learning a new interface to do the same thing.
I think the true solution would be for website designers to create mobile-friendly designs and for developers to add more features to their browsers. Perhaps VGA screens (I'm really not sure about this one) would improve mobile browsing experiences?
|
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 01:17 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 204
|
|
yap i tolly agree with them, a website should check who is acessing it and act acconrdingly, if its a mobile phone load the wml version, if its a pocket pc a light html version and if its a normal pc the full page. Now even with XML (RSS feeds) there are more ways to effectively make availalbe a site content to a wide variety of devices. A .mobi domain would only cause problems, i would never register an aditional domain just for mobile devices.
http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/xml/ <- use this effectively and you can utilize any device out there
|
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 02:15 AM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 137
|
|
The technology exists for a website to check on the browser type and either redirect the user or generate the appropriate presentatiion for the given device/browser. My take would be for this versus the .mobi extension - why should the user have to do this when the site is perfectly capable to do so?
If you rely on the user typing in the correct extension, you loose consistancy - some websites will provide the content based on browser type, some will end up requiring the user to select the type. My vote is on the website looking at the browser or device type and delivering the content appropriately.
Just my humble .02....
|
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 02:45 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 406
|
|
I agree with Tim Berners-Lee also.
In addition to what was said already, what about cybersquatting? Or simply not caring if you register a .mobi domain where someone has a corresponding .com? That would ruin the system entirely. Imagine pocketpcthoughtsmobile.mobi, or something like that. :roll:
I guess they could have a system where you can only register a .mobi if you have a corresponding .com, but that brings out another problem: what do you do with two groups who the same original domain name but different TLDs, like domain.com and domain.net? Who gets the .mobi? One would have the break the naming system and change their domain name for the .mobi version.
It's a mess.. they really should just make the servers adapt to the browser...
|
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 03:20 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,097
|
|
I agree as well, for my TLD, I share with a land trust, I have the .com and they have the .net, not to mention I really don't want to do the extra work, when the server can detect the clients browser, and load the page I've already (have yet to do this) made for mobile devices.
__________________
Please see www.grlt.com "Tech with a twist of lime!"
The Midlands Hybrid Club MidlandsHybrid.com
Current: Kacey's Wing, T-mo Wing Past: GCM_T, T-Mobile MDA |
| |
|
|
|
05-29-2004, 04:14 AM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 47
|
|
what about the device
With more and more devices coming out that have a high resolution, I feel it would be a better use of resources to create a maximum width of 640 for webpages, that way there is less code and you know that when you buy a device that it can either access a webpage or access a webpage that won't look right on my device.
With a maximum width, it would also be easier for QVGA devices to be able to shrink the webpage into the appropriate amount of pixels.
Webpages made for specialty devices would work the same way that they do now, if a company has a specialty site (as we do here) or simply the desire to make it availible on QVGA or less capable devices, then go right ahead. But we (web programmers) shouldn't be forced to make pages that work on any device.
All in all, I think that web designers should have the freedom to create a webpage based on 1 standard and not have to re-write the webpage based on who is looking at it. It should be the browsers job to interpret it correctly.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
