- From: Robin Berjon <robin.berjon@expway.fr>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 19:35:16 +0200
- To: r_olson <r_olson@pacbell.net>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Robert, thanks for this very informative post. r_olson wrote: > I have not looked at the .mobi proposal. On the surface, though, it feels > to me as if it has the same difficulties as the .kids TLDs - no way to > enforce the semantics and no way to ensure that links out of the domain > would be "appropriate" for the semantics of the TLD. Before even attempting to enforce the semantics, the semantics themselves need to be at least vaguely stable. What's "mobile content"? For many people today it's 160 characters SMS, or perhaps a terrifyingly ugly WAP page, but it's fast becoming an extremely multimedia thing, decreasingly different from what's available on desktops. I don't see specifically mobile applications either. Messaging? I need that from my fridge when I'm cooking and $DEITY knows it's not mobile. Geolocation? I want it on my laptop and it doesn't fit in my pocket either. Is the Mobile Web different? Well, at the rate at which things are going, it won't be long before mobile devices are farther along the Web standards adoption road than the antiquated tagsoup-and-gif rendering pieces of donkey turd that desktop vendors have grown used to insulting us with. But I have hope that the desktop world will have a fun time catching up a two or three years from now. So in fine, no difference: there is only one Web. In addition to that, SLD licensees and users may get the terribly harmful idea that the mobile version of a website ought to be at foo.mobi and the desktop version at foo.com, while there are excellent technical means of making those two the same website. So .mobi is meaningless, useless, and potentially harmful. Does anyone understand the original motivation? -- Robin Berjon
Received on Thursday, 6 May 2004 13:35:48 UTC