mTLD to enforce Web standards in .mobi

Zoxed writes "Builder.com reports that mTLD will force anyone wishing to register in .mobi will require its customers to stick to rules on how their users' Web sites are developed. Assuming this can/will be policed are there any *disadvantages* to the approach ? Could it be enforced in other TLDs ?" That is the real question: How and what effect would be done? And how sterile would an environment like that be?

Comments

What's the point?

[lpangelrob]

Why not just let the domain regulate itself?

If I go to a .mobi domain in my cell phone browser and it looks like crap, I won't go back. The website doesn't get any traffic. The company fixes it.

This isn't even bringing up the philisophical arguments of why this is a bad idea...

Re:What's the point?

[Jugalator]

This isn't even bringing up the philisophical arguments of why this is a bad idea...

It's not about censorship of content or layouts, but about making sites work with phones.

If not, they can make a website in .mobi that:

1) is not even intended to work with a phone -- do we want that for a special domain like this?

2) works with special brands of phones with special "web standard extensions". Imagine a Microsoft Smartphone with these under a snazzy name like MSX and companies starts hosting .msx documents instead because it's the Flash of mobiles. A lot of companies catches on because it's flashy and cool, and now you have the regular web but on handhelds.

Re:What's the point?

[Bert64]

Because if a large number of people use phone X which renders it`s own proprietary markup that`s incompatible with any other phone, then sites will pop up that use it.. Leaving those of you using phone Y screwed. Then as a result, people will think that phone Y is crap, and phone X will become more popular even if it`s a massively inferior device.

Re:What's the point?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why not just let the domain regulate itself? If I go to a .mobi domain in my cell phone browser and it looks like crap, I won't go back. The website doesn't get any traffic. The company fixes it.

First, they are trying to add value to their domain. If users learn that sites on that domain always work with all their mobile devices they will prefer it, which will make sites there more attractive, which will lead to more value for the owners. Second, letting the free market decide works great if you have a free market. As it is, however, you have minor interference from a swarm of governments and one huge monopoly trying to embrace and control said market. MS would like nothing better than to control the mobile OS space, and thus the internet for mobile users. They have the cash to strategically break service for 20% of users in the interest of gaining long term control and profits. This is not in the best interests of the domain owners and will reduce the value of the domain. Basically, I see this as a shrewd move assuming they can pull it off and one that favors end users.

let the market decide!

[yagu]

One of the fundamental underpinnings of the internet is its openness. That's not exact terminology but describes the internet's zen. Creating .mobi for specific use makes sense, the mobile world is almost ready for that. Establishing strict guidelines helps define a consistent (and predictable) mobile web experience, but strict policy flies in the internet zen's face.

Give designers free reign, let them create, let them innovate. Extend the freedom and define the extension as mobile friendly, but don't define what mobile friendly is to the web site creators.

As in the other TLD worlds, creativity has served to enhance and extend the web experience beyond many's expectations. .mobi should be no different, and constraining .mobi with policy weakens its potential. Let the free market and competing ideas dictate the policy.

The mobile user community will vote with their smart-text pads as to what is the most effective web site.

Also, there are unknown (now) reasons to create any kind of web site presence in .mobi.

Let the market decide!

.m

[jpx7777]

It would have been nice if they had made this .m instead of .mobi, just for the sake of if your on a mobile device it would be nice to type less, but I guess my next phone with have a qwerty keyboard on it anyway...

Kick ass.

[Audigy]

As an owner of a Treo 650, I am sick and tired of going to any website (ahem, slashdot) that takes 2-3 minutes to load... and then after it loads, renders the text like
t
h
i
s.

I look forward to a more mobile-friendly chunk of the Internet, and this is definitely a step in the right direction.

Re:Kick ass.

[MightyYar]

That's silly - you might as well tell blind users to get bent as well. As a web user, not a developer, I want to remind web developers that what we want is content. Many developers seem to concentrate on fluff. Fluff is pretty and might hook me initially, but it won't keep me coming back. I think maybe a page that can't render plain text content on the screen of a phone is more fluff than it is substance.

I read slashdot just fine with "links" on the command line sometimes, so why can't the page be rendered on a phone with graphic capabilities? How hard is it to make the "sidebar" appear only at the top and bottom when a user has a mobile phone? You are fighting a losing battle if you are trying to make your page look the same on every computer or device.

Headline mod for -1 flamebait

[Anonymous Coward]

"....mobi will require its customers to stick to rules on how their users' Web sites are developed... how sterile would an environment like that be?"

Probably real sterile, like, say CSS Zengarden, or some austere, clinical place like that.

Standards have nothing to do with how cold or airless your design is. In fact, I would suggest that the best and most vibrant designers care about them more than anybody. The headline lacks this basic clue.

Re:What about outdated/old technology?

[KDR_11k]

As said above, otherwise nothing is stopping people from putting normal websites on .mobi and mobile users won't be sure whether a .mobi page is actually compatible with mobile phones or just some idiot looking for a new domain to put his porn site/goatse redirector/blog onto.

This is so misguided

[MatD]

This is so misguided. Viewing a web page in a mobile device will be drastically different from phone to phone to pda, to web ipod (just wait, it's coming). Web page developers are going to have to resort to large conditionals based on the device viewing the page, and invariably, it will require breaking 'standards' to get a page to view correctly in the latest and greatest mobile device.

Plus, it's just kinda lame to force arbitrary rules on people.

Oh, of course... 'the market'...

[Traegorn]

Because we all know how well the market has adhered to the suggested rules on .com, .org, and .net...

And all the .tv addresses are clearly hosted in Tuvalu.

Self policing has failed.

Follow some basic rules!

[lilmouse]

Think of .mobi as .com.moderated. If you want to create a wacky, flash-based website that lots of people can't view anyway, and that certainly won't run on half the mobile-phones, well, then .com is for you! If you're going to create a .mobi site, then you're going to have to follow some rules. Within those rules, you can do anything you want.

"Free market" is why we have a monopoly that can flex its muscles and push alternate technologies out of the marketplace. "Free market" means you can't compete on an even basis, because the dominant player already has locked you out of the markets with supplier agreements. It also means that the W3C standards get ignored by the majority of websites out there, and there is no longer an even playing field - alternate browsers that conform to the standards better do not display as well.

Part of the problem is that mobile-users don't have sufficient information to use the best webpages. They won't vote based on which is the most effective; they'll vote on which is the most well advertised, hyped up, etc, or they'll end up forced to use a site because they've already paid for access to a different format (e.g., a banking website - they might choose their bank because it has free checking, but then be stuck with a sucky .mobi site).

Part of the problem is that chaotic innovation can give users plenty of choice in the short term, but in the long term, sites don't work clearly anymore, there are no standards, the standards that are there are proprietary and only known to one company, etc.

This is an attempt to make sure that one company (no names mentioned) can dictate the format of the webpages available for mobiles devices, and no company can dictate what mobile devices can access .mobi pages. I'm glad to see this, and will be curious to see how the pages look. Hopefully, we'll avoid another standards debacle, and hopefully, mobiles devices today will still be able to view pages 3 years from now.

--LWM

Re:Will they block DNS for non-compliant sites?

[FLEB]

If they do block non-compliant sites then I can see them having a lot of court battles on their hands.

Not if you agreed to abide by standards when you registered the name. Of course, this is assuming that they have a specific plan with solid guidelines in place before .mobi goes live, and spell that out in detail to prospective buyers.

Re:What about outdated/old technology?

[TheRaven64]

Most people on mobile 'phones are paying a lot for bandwidth. I pay something like £1/MB. If I go to a site and it doesn't display on my device, then it may have cost 10p or so for nothing. Do this a few times, and it works out to be a lot. This way, I know that any site with a .mobi domain will work with any standards-compliant device. Any other site is still a lottery, but at least I can be sure of some sites.